DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
689 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
689 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing from the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should deny the defendant's motion to preclude co-conspirator statements at trial, asserting the defense has misread a prior court order and is seeking an unprecedented remedy. The Government maintains that its handling of co-conspirator statements aligns with the established law of the Second Circuit.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| defendant | defendant |
The party who filed a motion to compel the Government to identify co-conspirator statements before trial.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, arguing against the defendant's motion.
|
| the Court | judicial body |
The judicial body presiding over case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which issued the September 3, 2021 Order.
|
| Second Circuit | judicial body |
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose legal precedents on co-conspirator statements are cited by the Government.
|
| District Court | judicial body |
Mentioned in a 1987 case citation (In re U.S.) where its order was reversed by the Second Circuit.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1987
The Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in 'In re U.S.', reversing a District Court's order that directed the Government to produce oral statements from defendants and coconspirators.
2021-09-03
The Court issued a pretrial order which is central to the dispute between the defense and the Government.
Relationships (1)
The document details a legal dispute where the Government is arguing against a motion filed by the defendant in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (4)
"any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful utility."Source
— defendant
(Quoted from the defendant's Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 148) to argue that the conditional admission of co-conspirator statements would be prejudicial.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #1
"proffer from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible."Source
— defendant
(The defendant's request to the Court as a remedy for the potential prejudice of admitting co-conspirator statements.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #2
"the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable under Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act."Source
— the Government
(Quoted from the Government's Opposition filing (Dkt. No. 204) to explain the legal precedent against the defendant's request.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #3
"produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the"Source
— District Court (in a reversed order)
(A portion of a District Court order that was reversed by the Second Circuit in the 1987 case 'In re U.S.', cited by the Government as precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document