DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
733 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
733 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standard for materiality in a perjury case. It cites several precedents (Gaudin, Kross, Birrell, Chan Lo) to define what constitutes a material false statement, particularly in the context of a deposition. The document concludes by arguing that the defendant's deposition statements were knowingly false and that the determination of their truthfulness is a matter for the jury at trial, not for a pretrial dismissal.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Gaudin | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995).
|
| Kross | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994).
|
| Birrell | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972).
|
| Chan Lo | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234.
|
| Forde |
Mentioned in the case citation Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Appears as the plaintiff in multiple case citations (e.g., United States v. Gaudin).
|
| Triumph Capital Group, Inc. | company |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case citation United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2016-02-04
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the court district in the citation for United States v. Chan Lo (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016).
|
Key Quotes (6)
"a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed."Source
— United States v. Gaudin
(Defining a material false statement in a perjury case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
Quote #1
"a truthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit."Source
— United States v. Kross
(Defining a material statement made in a civil deposition.)
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
Quote #2
"it must be shown that a truthful answer would have been of sufficient probative importance to the inquiry so that, as a minimum, further fruitful investigation would have occurred."Source
— United States v. Birrell
(Explaining the standard for materiality in the context of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.)
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
Quote #3
"The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding."Source
— United States v. Chan Lo
(Clarifying that the actual effect of the testimony is not required for it to be material.)
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
Quote #4
"except in the most extraordinary circumstances."Source
— Forde
(Stating that the question of materiality is for the jury, with a very narrow exception.)
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
Quote #5
"Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant’s statement is a question of fact for the"Source
— United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc.
(Arguing that the defendant's deposition statements should be evaluated by a jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
Quote #6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document