DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg

679 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size: 679 KB
Summary

Page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text contains legal arguments regarding the timing of appellate reviews, specifically citing precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that immediate appeals are generally not granted if post-judgment relief (like a reversal after a trial) can adequately protect the defendant's rights. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Punn Defendant (Cited Case)
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Punn) regarding appellate review standards.
Hallock Party (Cited Case)
Cited in legal precedent (Will v. Hallock).
Hitchcock Defendant (Cited Case)
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Hitchcock) regarding sealing documents.

Organizations (7)

Name Type Context
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Indicated by Bates stamp prefix 'DOJ-OGR'.
Mohawk Industries
Cited in Supreme Court precedent.
Kensington Int'l Ltd.
Cited in Second Circuit precedent.
Republic of Congo
Cited in Second Circuit precedent.
2d Cir.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited authority).
9th Cir.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (cited authority).
U.S. Supreme Court
Implied by 'U.S.' case citations.

Locations (1)

Location Context
Mentioned as a party in a cited legal case.

Key Quotes (3)

"“Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the entry of final judgment ‘would imperil a substantial public interest’ or ‘some particular value of a high order.’”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Quote #1
"In a criminal case, the availability of post-judgment relief through reversal or vacatur of conviction, if warranted, will generally be sufficient to protect whatever right a defendant claims was abridged by the district court’s pretrial decision."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Quote #2
"“[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by defendants)."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document