DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg

705 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 705 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the Government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government argues that it has provided sufficient and timely notice to the defense regarding Rule 404(b) evidence, citing the provision of extensive materials and relevant legal precedents. The brief refutes the defense's motion to preclude evidence based on claims of inadequate notice.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Hart Litigant
Mentioned as a party in the cited case, Hart v. BHH, LLC.
Rodriguez Litigant
Mentioned as a party in the cited case, Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc.
Chandler Defendant
Mentioned as a party in the cited case, United States v. Chandler.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Government government agency
A party in the legal case, arguing against the defense's motion.
Second Circuit government agency
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose legal precedent is cited.
BHH, LLC company
A party in the cited case, Hart v. BHH, LLC.
Vill. Green Realty, Inc. company
A party in the cited case, Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc.

Timeline (3 events)

2015
A ruling was made in the case Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc.
2d Cir.
2019-04-04
A ruling was made in the case Hart v. BHH, LLC.
S.D.N.Y.
2021-05-10
A ruling was made in the case United States v. Chandler.
S.D.N.Y.
United States Chandler

Locations (1)

Location Context
The Southern District of New York, mentioned as the location for cited legal cases.

Relationships (1)

Government adversarial defense
The document is a brief where the Government is arguing against the defense's claims regarding the inadequacy of a legal notice.

Key Quotes (4)

"before trial,"
Source
— Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C) (Quoted to describe the timing requirement for the defense to receive notice of Rule 404(b) evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #1
"during trial . . . for good cause."
Source
— Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C) (Quoted to describe an exception to the timing requirement for notice of Rule 404(b) evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #2
"unusually early"
Source
— Government (Describing the timing of the provision of Jencks Act materials to the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #3
"Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds."
Source
— Hart v. BHH, LLC (A legal principle cited from a previous case to support the Government's argument against excluding evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document