DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
653 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
653 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing by the government in a criminal case, dated February 25, 2022. The government argues against a defendant's motion, asserting that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay are speculative and unsupported by evidence. The government specifically refutes the defendant's argument that lost flight manifests would have been helpful to the defense, citing legal precedents to argue that the defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving actual prejudice.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the opposing party to the defendant, arguing that flight manifests could have helped their case.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document control number (DOJ-OGR-00009606), likely indicating the Department of Ju...
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
The document is a legal filing where the Government is arguing against a motion made by the defendant.
Key Quotes (5)
"motion is unsupported by any proof that might substantiate a finding of actual and substantial prejudice as a result of the delay."Source
— Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at *2
(Quoted to argue against the defendant's motion regarding prejudice from delay.)
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
Quote #1
"bare assertions do not satisfy the ‘definite and not speculative’ requirements attendant on the [defendant’s] ‘heavy burden’ to show actual prejudice."Source
— Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at *2
(Quoted to describe the high standard the defendant must meet to prove prejudice, which the government argues has not been met.)
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
Quote #2
"not entitled to any such inference” “[a]s the side that bears the burden."Source
— Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at *2
(Quoted to state that the defendant, who has the burden of proof, cannot simply infer that lost evidence would have been favorable.)
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
Quote #3
"Without even a cursory showing of what the evidence would have shown, the [defendant] raise[s] ‘at most the possibility of prejudice,’ but ‘[n]o actual prejudice is established.’"Source
— United States v. Foddrell, 523 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1975)
(Quoted to argue that the defendant has only shown a possibility of prejudice, not actual prejudice, which is required.)
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
Quote #4
"they were male or female."Source
— Unknown (from transcript Tr. 172-73)
(Quoted in a footnote to illustrate the speculative nature of the information the defendant claims would be in the flight manifests.)
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,898 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 44 of 51
be helpful to her. Indeed, she again ignores that the flight manifests may well have helped the
Government. Once again, the defendant’s argument is entirely speculative and unsupported by the
record. The defendant offers no proof or basis for concluding that the flight manifests would be
helpful and merit the extreme relief she seeks.
Government. Once again, the defendant’s argument is entirely speculative and unsupported by the
record. The defendant offers no proof or basis for concluding that the flight manifests would be
helpful and merit the extreme relief she seeks.
Third, the defendant’s “motion is unsupported by any proof that might substantiate a
finding of actual and substantial prejudice as a result of the delay.” Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at
*2 (citing Birney, 686 F.2d at 106). The defendant’s “bare assertions do not satisfy the ‘definite
and not speculative’ requirements attendant on the [defendant’s] ‘heavy burden’ to show actual
prejudice.” Id. Instead, the defendant appears to “rely on the proposition that the loss of evidence
merits an inference that the evidence would have been both favorable and material.” Id. The
defendant, however, is “not entitled to any such inference” “[a]s the side that bears the burden.”
Id. “Without even a cursory showing of what the evidence would have shown, the [defendant]
raise[s] ‘at most the possibility of prejudice,’ but ‘[n]o actual prejudice is established.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Foddrell, 523 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1975)).
finding of actual and substantial prejudice as a result of the delay.” Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at
*2 (citing Birney, 686 F.2d at 106). The defendant’s “bare assertions do not satisfy the ‘definite
and not speculative’ requirements attendant on the [defendant’s] ‘heavy burden’ to show actual
prejudice.” Id. Instead, the defendant appears to “rely on the proposition that the loss of evidence
merits an inference that the evidence would have been both favorable and material.” Id. The
defendant, however, is “not entitled to any such inference” “[a]s the side that bears the burden.”
Id. “Without even a cursory showing of what the evidence would have shown, the [defendant]
raise[s] ‘at most the possibility of prejudice,’ but ‘[n]o actual prejudice is established.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Foddrell, 523 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1975)).
In short, the defendant’s complaints are nothing more than the type of self-serving, vague,
speculative, and conclusory claims of prejudice that courts have consistently rejected as
insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay. The motion should
therefore be denied.
speculative, and conclusory claims of prejudice that courts have consistently rejected as
insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay. The motion should
therefore be denied.
_____________________
they were male or female.” (Tr. 172-73). Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the manifests
would have contained the information as the defendant speculates, much less that they would have
been helpful to the defense.
would have contained the information as the defendant speculates, much less that they would have
been helpful to the defense.
43
DOJ-OGR-00009606
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document