DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
828 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
828 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a filing by the prosecution (The Government) arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that the defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution is speculative, as her assertions about diminished witness memories and lost access to her own emails, phone, and travel records from 1994-1997 lack proof of their helpfulness or materiality. The document cites legal precedents (Harrison and Dornau) to support the position that such speculative claims are insufficient grounds for dismissal.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned in reference to the standard of proof for actual prejudice in the case of Marion.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the case, which is arguing against the defendant's claims.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the document footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00003011'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The defendant is making a claim that a delay in prosecution has prejudiced her case due to the loss of access to exculpatory evidence.
defendant
The Government
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case citations for Harrison (1991) and Dornau (1973), referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details the legal arguments between the defendant and the prosecution (The Government) regarding a motion to dismiss an indictment.
Key Quotes (2)
"the passage of time does affect witnesses’ memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony"Source
— United States v. Harrison
(Cited to acknowledge that the passage of time can affect witness memory, but arguing it doesn't automatically warrant dismissal.)
DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
Quote #1
"A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate"Source
— United States v. Dornau
(Cited to support the argument that the defendant's claim of lost evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document