DOJ-OGR-00008429.jpg
686 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
686 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against two jury instructions proposed by the defense. The Government opposes a specific instruction on witness convictions, fearing it would overemphasize them, and argues against modifying the standard instruction for uncalled witnesses. It cites case law to assert that a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment is 'equally unavailable' to both the prosecution and the defense.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Shawn | Witness |
Mentioned as one of two witnesses whose prior convictions were discussed during direct testimony.
|
| Myerson | Party in a legal case |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Myerson, 18 F.3d 153, 158 (2d Cir. 1994)'.
|
| Romero | Party in a legal case |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Romero, 304 F. App’x 14, 18 (2d Cir. 2008)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the legal case, opposing jury instructions requested by the defense.
|
| Court | Government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, responsible for giving instructions to the jury.
|
| 2d Cir. | Court |
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited as the source of legal precedent in 'United States v. Myerson' and 'United...
|
Timeline (2 events)
A charge conference where the defense argued for the removal of the word 'equally' from the standard instruction regarding uncalled witnesses.
Court
Government
defense
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the Government's opposition to jury instructions proposed by the defense during a charge conference.
Key Quotes (4)
"despite the government’s power to grant immunity, a witness invoking his constitutional rights is unavailable to the government as well as the defense."Source
— United States v. Myerson
(A legal holding cited to support the argument that a witness invoking self-incrimination is unavailable to both parties.)
DOJ-OGR-00008429.jpg
Quote #1
"equally unavailable"Source
— United States v. Romero
(Part of a jury instruction that was affirmed in a case where a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00008429.jpg
Quote #2
"uncalled witness equally available"Source
— Sand Instr. 6-7
(The name of a standard jury instruction being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00008429.jpg
Quote #3
"includes situations when the witness has indicated that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify if called"Source
— Sand Instr. 6-7
(An explanation from a legal instruction manual about the application of the 'uncalled witness equally available' instruction.)
DOJ-OGR-00008429.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,996 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 554 Filed 12/18/21 Page 2 of 3
and Shawn, and their prior convictions were only discussed briefly during their direct testimony—
and not at all on cross-examination. Including the instruction therefore would not serve its
intended purpose. Rather, it would have the opposite effect of overemphasizing the prior
convictions.
and not at all on cross-examination. Including the instruction therefore would not serve its
intended purpose. Rather, it would have the opposite effect of overemphasizing the prior
convictions.
If the Court nevertheless gives this instruction, the Government requests that it be included
as part of the Court’s general instruction on credibility, Instruction 44. That instruction already
discusses particular circumstances of certain witnesses, namely, those testifying under
pseudonyms. Because the proposed instruction at most reflects brief testimony by only two
witnesses, it is appropriate to provide, at most, a similarly brief and balanced treatment of the
instruction.
as part of the Court’s general instruction on credibility, Instruction 44. That instruction already
discusses particular circumstances of certain witnesses, namely, those testifying under
pseudonyms. Because the proposed instruction at most reflects brief testimony by only two
witnesses, it is appropriate to provide, at most, a similarly brief and balanced treatment of the
instruction.
Second, the Government opposes the removal of “equally” from the standard instruction
regarding uncalled witnesses. During the charge conference, the defense argued that some
witnesses were not “equally” available because they would or did invoke their protection against
self-incrimination. Many circuits have held, however, that “despite the government’s power to
grant immunity, a witness invoking his constitutional rights is unavailable to the government as
well as the defense.” United States v. Myerson, 18 F.3d 153, 158 (2d Cir. 1994) (collecting cases);
see United States v. Romero, 304 F. App’x 14, 18 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (affirming the
“equally unavailable” instruction where a witness invoked the protections of the Fifth
Amendment); Sand Instr. 6-7 (explaining that the “uncalled witness equally available” instruction
“includes situations when the witness has indicated that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right
not to testify if called”). That is a sensible result: a witness with criminal jeopardy is not
“available” to the Government in any more than an abstract sense. To obtain their testimony, the
regarding uncalled witnesses. During the charge conference, the defense argued that some
witnesses were not “equally” available because they would or did invoke their protection against
self-incrimination. Many circuits have held, however, that “despite the government’s power to
grant immunity, a witness invoking his constitutional rights is unavailable to the government as
well as the defense.” United States v. Myerson, 18 F.3d 153, 158 (2d Cir. 1994) (collecting cases);
see United States v. Romero, 304 F. App’x 14, 18 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (affirming the
“equally unavailable” instruction where a witness invoked the protections of the Fifth
Amendment); Sand Instr. 6-7 (explaining that the “uncalled witness equally available” instruction
“includes situations when the witness has indicated that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right
not to testify if called”). That is a sensible result: a witness with criminal jeopardy is not
“available” to the Government in any more than an abstract sense. To obtain their testimony, the
2
DOJ-OGR-00008429
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document