DOJ-OGR-00005584.jpg
463 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
463 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing from October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In it, the Government argues that the defense should not be allowed to introduce evidence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to impeach a redacted individual. The Government claims this is a pretext by the defense to confuse the jury and argue for jury nullification.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| [REDACTED] |
Mentioned as the subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), whose bias and interest the defense seeks to show thro...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the legal case, whose investigations the defense wishes to portray as sloppy. The Government is arguing ag...
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The recipient of the legal argument, who is being asked to reject the defense's argument.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-10-29
Filing of Document 383 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the admissibility of a Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Government
Defense
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal dispute between the defense and the Government regarding the admissibility of evidence (a Non-Prosecution Agreement) in a trial.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (862 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 30 of 40
theoretical relevance this could have. That problem is only compounded by the fact that, if the defense wishes to try to show that the Government’s investigations were sloppy, the Government is entitled to rebut that argument with evidence of its thoroughness and care—creating a mini-trial that is immaterial to the jury’s function.
B. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose
The defense argues that evidence of the NPA is nonetheless admissible for impeachment, specifically to show the bias and interest of [REDACTED] (Def. Opp. at 29). The Court should reject that baseless argument as mere pretext to put the NPA before the jury, in an attempt to confuse and mislead the jury and argue for jury nullification.
[REDACTED]
29
DOJ-OGR-00005584
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document