DOJ-OGR-00005852.jpg
675 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
675 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the photo identification of a defendant by 'Minor Victim-4' was valid and not suggestive. It establishes that the victim had prior personal knowledge of the defendant from interactions between 2001 and 2004, and that the photo identification procedure was conducted cautiously. The document refutes the defense's claim that the defendant's photo was unduly suggestive because it looked like a 'mug shot' or was different from the others.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Victim-4 | Victim |
A victim who identified the defendant from a photo book, based on prior personal interactions.
|
| Stallings | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Stallings v. Wood'.
|
| Wood | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Stallings v. Wood'.
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal proceedings, who was identified by Minor Victim-4.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| E.D.N.Y. | Government agency |
Appears in a case citation, referring to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2001-2004
Minor Victim-4 and the defendant met in person and interacted multiple times.
2007, 2009, 2020, and 2021
Minor Victim-4 mentioned the defendant by description or by name.
Minor Victim-4 was shown a photo book with 20 photos and identified a photo of the defendant.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation, referring to the Eastern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states they 'met in person and interacted multiple times between 2001 and 2004'.
Key Quotes (2)
"looks like a mug shot"Source
— the defense
(An argument made by the defense that the defendant's photo was suggestive.)
DOJ-OGR-00005852.jpg
Quote #1
"is different than the others."Source
— the defense
(An argument made by the defense that the defendant's photo was suggestive because it stood out from the others in the photo array.)
DOJ-OGR-00005852.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,929 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 69 of 84
and the identification is merely confirmatory.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
Stallings v. Wood, No. 04 Civ. 4714 (RLM), 2006 WL 842380, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2006)
(collecting cases).
Minor Victim-4’s personal knowledge of the defendant is well established. The defendant
and Minor Victim-4 met in person and interacted multiple times between 2001 and 2004. Minor
Victim-4 then mentioned the defendant by description or by name in 2007, 2009, 2020, and 2021,
all prior to being shown the photo book. And the circumstances of the identification were not
suggestive. Minor Victim-4 was shown 20 photos, [REDACTED]. She was
not asked to locate the defendant, or asked whether a particular photo
depicted the defendant, but just whether she recognized anyone, although she was told that she
was not expected to recognize someone just because their photo was in the book. And, indeed,
Minor Victim-4 said she did not recognize some photos in the book. Regarding the defendant
specifically, Minor Victim-4 carefully considered whether a different photo depicted the person
she believed to be the defendant before seeing and selecting a photo of the defendant. This
procedure was cautious and not suggestive—much less unduly suggestive.
The reality is straightforward: Minor Victim-4 knows exactly who the defendant is and
confirmed that the person in the photograph was the defendant. In response, the defense argues
that the photo “looks like a mug shot” and “is different than the others.” (Def. Mot. 9 at 3). Of
course, as is often the case with photo arrays or photo books, all of the photos generally resemble
mug shots, so there is nothing suggestive about the fact that the defendant’s photo does. And it is
not in fact different from the others: While the defendant’s photo is lower resolution than some,
Stallings v. Wood, No. 04 Civ. 4714 (RLM), 2006 WL 842380, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2006)
(collecting cases).
Minor Victim-4’s personal knowledge of the defendant is well established. The defendant
and Minor Victim-4 met in person and interacted multiple times between 2001 and 2004. Minor
Victim-4 then mentioned the defendant by description or by name in 2007, 2009, 2020, and 2021,
all prior to being shown the photo book. And the circumstances of the identification were not
suggestive. Minor Victim-4 was shown 20 photos, [REDACTED]. She was
not asked to locate the defendant, or asked whether a particular photo
depicted the defendant, but just whether she recognized anyone, although she was told that she
was not expected to recognize someone just because their photo was in the book. And, indeed,
Minor Victim-4 said she did not recognize some photos in the book. Regarding the defendant
specifically, Minor Victim-4 carefully considered whether a different photo depicted the person
she believed to be the defendant before seeing and selecting a photo of the defendant. This
procedure was cautious and not suggestive—much less unduly suggestive.
The reality is straightforward: Minor Victim-4 knows exactly who the defendant is and
confirmed that the person in the photograph was the defendant. In response, the defense argues
that the photo “looks like a mug shot” and “is different than the others.” (Def. Mot. 9 at 3). Of
course, as is often the case with photo arrays or photo books, all of the photos generally resemble
mug shots, so there is nothing suggestive about the fact that the defendant’s photo does. And it is
not in fact different from the others: While the defendant’s photo is lower resolution than some,
68
DOJ-OGR-00005852
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document