DOJ-OGR-00005602.jpg
754 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
754 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that precluding certain statements is the only appropriate remedy for a discovery violation. It cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2)(C) and legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in *Taylor v. Illinois*, to establish that a court has the discretion to impose such a sanction. The argument rests on balancing a defendant's rights against public interests like the integrity of the trial process and the fair administration of justice.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Judicial body |
The Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) is instructive.
|
| 10th Cir. | Judicial body |
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059, 1060 (10th Cir. 1988).
|
Timeline (2 events)
1988
The Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Taylor v. Illinois, which involved the exclusion of a witness as a sanction for a discovery violation.
Illinois
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case name Taylor v. Illinois.
|
Relationships (1)
government
→
Adversarial (Legal)
→
defendant
The document discusses the legal dynamic between the government and a defendant in a criminal case, specifically regarding discovery obligations and potential prejudice from delays.
Key Quotes (2)
"to offer the testimony of witnesses in his favor"Source
— Supreme Court (in Taylor v. Illinois)
(Describing a defendant's fundamental right that must be balanced against countervailing public interests when considering a preclusion sanction.)
DOJ-OGR-00005602.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]he integrity of the adversary process, which depends both on the presentation of reliable evidence and the rejection of unreliable evidence, the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process."Source
— Supreme Court (in Taylor v. Illinois)
(Listing the countervailing public interests that a trial court must consider when deciding on a preclusion sanction.)
DOJ-OGR-00005602.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document