DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
674 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
674 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pierre-Louis | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5' as a legal precedent.
|
| Lovasco | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 (1977)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Dowling | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Youngblood | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Cornielle | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752' as a legal precedent.
|
| Marion | Party in a cited legal case |
Quoted in the citation for Cornielle: '(quoting Marion, 404 U.S. at 324)'.
|
| Alameh | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Delacruz | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)' as a legal precedent.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
Referred to as the prosecuting party in the legal argument, likely the U.S. Government.
|
| Supreme Court | Court |
Cited for its rulings in Lovasco, Dowling, and Youngblood cases.
|
| The Second Circuit | Court |
Cited for its clear holding on the requirements for dismissing an indictment due to delay.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | Court |
Mentioned in the citation for the Delacruz case, referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
| DOJ | Government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00009607', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implicitly the location of the legal system being discussed, and explicitly mentioned in case names like 'United Stat...
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case name 'Arizona v. Youngblood'.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a case citation, referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal argument by one party (presumably the Government) against the other (the Defendant) regarding a motion to dismiss an indictment.
Key Quotes (6)
"Because Defendant failed to show prejudice, the Court need not even address the second prong[.]"Source
— Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5
(Quoted to support the argument that the reason for delay is only considered after prejudice is established.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #1
"defined the category of infractions that violate ‘fundamental fairness’ very narrowly,"Source
— Supreme Court (in Dowling v. United States)
(Quoted to show the high standard for proving a due process violation based on delay.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #2
"stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part of the Government when the claim is based on loss of evidence attributable to the Government,"Source
— Supreme Court (in Arizona v. Youngblood)
(Quoted to emphasize the relevance of the Government's intent (good or bad faith).)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #3
"intentional device to gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused"Source
— Marion, 404 U.S. at 324 (quoted in Cornielle)
(Used to define the type of delay that is legally problematic.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #4
"To show unjustifiable conduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the government has intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage."Source
— United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)
(Quoted to state the requirement for a defendant to prove intentional delay for tactical gain.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #5
"[T]he defendant’s] motion to dismiss would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that he has not"Source
— United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
(Quoted as another precedent supporting the denial of a motion to dismiss.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document