DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell |
A party in the case, making a legal argument against the government's position.
|
|
| Justice Blackmun | Justice |
Mentioned for his concurring opinion in a case relevant to the argument.
|
| Justice Brennan | Justice |
Mentioned for his opinion concurring in judgment.
|
| McDonough |
A party in a cited Supreme Court case (McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556) that established a legal test.
|
|
| Stewart |
A party in a case the government is accused of ignoring.
|
|
| Shaoul |
A party in a case (United States v. Shaoul) that the government relies on, but which is argued to be inapplicable or ...
|
|
| Langford |
A party in a case that is argued to be a controlling precedent over Shaoul.
|
|
| Jama |
A party in a cited case (Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t) regarding the non-binding nature of dictum.
|
|
| Wilkerson |
A party in a cited case (United States v. Wilkerson) regarding the binding nature of prior panel decisions.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
The opposing party to Ms. Maxwell, referred to as 'the government'.
|
| Immigr. & Customs Enf’t | government agency |
A party in the cited case Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t.
|
| United States Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the highest court whose opinions are binding.
|
| Court of Appeals | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its panels being bound by prior decisions.
|
| Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. | organization |
A party in the cited case Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.
|
| Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys. | government agency |
A party in the cited case Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-03-11
A legal document was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the government's reliance on the Shaoul case precedent.
Relationships (1)
The document presents Ms. Maxwell's legal arguments refuting the position taken by 'the government' (United States) in a court case.
Key Quotes (4)
"satisfy the second part of the McDonough test—that the juror could have been challenged for cause."Source
— The Shaoul Court
(Quoted from the Shaoul case (Id. at 816) to explain why the court's subsequent discussion was dictum.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #1
"Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it."Source
— Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t
(Cited from a Supreme Court case to support the argument that a portion of the Shaoul opinion is not binding.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #2
"bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court"Source
— United States v. Wilkerson
(Cited to explain the principle of stare decisis within the Court of Appeals.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #3
"In the event of conflicting panel opinions . . . the earlier one controls, as one panel of this court may not overrule another"Source
— Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.
(Cited to argue that the earlier Langford decision should control over the later, conflicting Shaoul decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,055 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 17 of 32
433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556). Ms. Maxwell need not prove a deliberate falsehood. Id.
The government all but ignores Stewart, relying on United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811 (2d Cir. 1994), in an effort to minimize Langford. The government’s invocation of Shaoul fails.
First, Shaoul did not reject the argument Ms. Maxwell makes here. Nowhere in Shaoul does the Court cite or discuss Justice Blackmun’s concurring opinion or Justice Brennan’s opinion concurring in judgment, which together were supported by five justices. See Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815-17. This Court should not read Shaoul to have rejected an argument it did not even consider.
Second, the language from Shaoul on which the government relies is dictum. That’s because the Shaoul Court held that the defendant could not “satisfy the second part of the McDonough test—that the juror could have been challenged for cause.” Id. at 816. The Court’s discussion of deliberate-versus-inadvertent false answers thus was not necessary to its conclusion, and this Court is not bound by it. Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 352 n.12 (2005) (“Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it.”).
Third, if the government’s reading of Shaoul were correct, then Shaoul is inconsistent with Langford, not to mention McDonough. Because Langford was decided first, and because McDonough is a United States Supreme Court opinion, this Court is bound by both and not by Shaoul. Compare United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) (one panel of the Court of Appeals is “bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court”), with Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 195 F.3d 28, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“In the event of conflicting panel opinions . . . the earlier one controls, as one panel of this court may not overrule
12
DOJ-OGR-00009886
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document