DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
690 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (case 1:19-cr-00830-at)
File Size:
690 KB
Summary
This is page 8 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (USA v. Noel and Thomas). The court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel the government to produce evidence held by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), ruling that the BOP is not part of the prosecution team for Brady disclosure purposes. The document also outlines Thomas's argument that the conduct he is charged with was rampant within the BOP and acquiesced to by leadership.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant |
Subject of the motion to compel; seeking disclosure of information regarding BOP practices. (Likely Michael Thomas, a...
|
| Rivera | Legal Precedent |
Cited in United States v. Rivera.
|
| Merlino | Legal Precedent |
Cited in United States v. Merlino.
|
| Battle | Legal Precedent |
Cited in United States v. Battle.
|
| Avellino | Legal Precedent |
Cited in United States v. Avellino.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; entity possessing materials the defendant seeks.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution/Department of Justice.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Mentioned in relation to BOP employees.
|
|
| Court |
The judicial body issuing the denial.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-06-09
Court denies Thomas' motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence in the possession of the BOP.
Court (SDNY implied by case number)
Relationships (2)
Thomas' motion to compel the Government... is DENIED.
Court rules BOP is not part of the 'prosecutorial arm' in this specific context.
Key Quotes (4)
"Accordingly, Thomas' motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence in the possession of the BOP is DENIED."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
Quote #1
"the BOP was not part of the prosecutorial arm of the federal government as it was not at all involved in either the investigation or the prosecution of the defendants"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
Quote #2
"Even if the Court assumes that some members of the BOP staff did possess favorable information that alone does not impute knowledge to the prosecution team."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
Quote #3
"Thomas seeks disclosure of information that he argues will tend to show that the conduct for which he is being prosecuted was: '1) rampant throughout the BOP...'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,951 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 8 of 9
the government is in constructive possession of the materials where, as here, defendant has not
presented any evidence suggesting that the BOP was involved in the investigation or prosecution
of this case." United States v. Rivera, No. 13 Cr. 149, 2015 WL 1540517, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
7, 2015); see, e.g., United States v. Merlino, 349 F.3d 144, 155 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that
Government did not violate Brady obligation in failing to turn over tapes in BOP possession
because "the BOP was not part of the prosecutorial arm of the federal government as it was not
at all involved in either the investigation or the prosecution of the defendants"); United States v.
Battle, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1201–02 (N.D. Ga. 2003) ("Defendant implies that because the
BOP employees are connected with the Department of Justice that the prosecution team
constructively possessed exculpatory information that could have been within the knowledge of
BOP staff. . . . Even if the Court assumes that some members of the BOP staff did possess
favorable information that alone does not impute knowledge to the prosecution team.") (citing
United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998)).
presented any evidence suggesting that the BOP was involved in the investigation or prosecution
of this case." United States v. Rivera, No. 13 Cr. 149, 2015 WL 1540517, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
7, 2015); see, e.g., United States v. Merlino, 349 F.3d 144, 155 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that
Government did not violate Brady obligation in failing to turn over tapes in BOP possession
because "the BOP was not part of the prosecutorial arm of the federal government as it was not
at all involved in either the investigation or the prosecution of the defendants"); United States v.
Battle, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1201–02 (N.D. Ga. 2003) ("Defendant implies that because the
BOP employees are connected with the Department of Justice that the prosecution team
constructively possessed exculpatory information that could have been within the knowledge of
BOP staff. . . . Even if the Court assumes that some members of the BOP staff did possess
favorable information that alone does not impute knowledge to the prosecution team.") (citing
United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998)).
Accordingly, Thomas' motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence in the
possession of the BOP is DENIED.
possession of the BOP is DENIED.
IV. Other Materials
Finally, Thomas seeks disclosure of information that he argues will tend to show that the
conduct for which he is being prosecuted was: "1) rampant throughout the BOP; 2) made with
knowledge and acquiescence by the leadership of the BOP; 3) made as a result of BOP policies
that forced the defendant to engage in conduct for which he is now being charged criminally,
and; 4) made in a manner which contains a possible discriminatory application of BOP policies
by [G]overnment prosecutors." Motion at 7. But Thomas has not provided support for his
conduct for which he is being prosecuted was: "1) rampant throughout the BOP; 2) made with
knowledge and acquiescence by the leadership of the BOP; 3) made as a result of BOP policies
that forced the defendant to engage in conduct for which he is now being charged criminally,
and; 4) made in a manner which contains a possible discriminatory application of BOP policies
by [G]overnment prosecutors." Motion at 7. But Thomas has not provided support for his
8
DOJ-OGR-00022104
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document