DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
694 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
694 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lindsey | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1036 (5th Cir. 1985).
|
| King | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1036 (5th Cir. 1985).
|
| Bowen | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 612 (10th Cir. 1986).
|
| Maynard | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 612 (10th Cir. 1986).
|
| Kyles | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46 and is described as the case chiefly cited by the defense.
|
| Watson | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Watson v. Greene, 640 F.3d 501, 512 n.11 (2d Cir. 2011).
|
| Greene | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Watson v. Greene, 640 F.3d 501, 512 n.11 (2d Cir. 2011).
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 5th Cir. | Court |
Referenced in the citation for Lindsey v. King, indicating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
|
| 10th Cir. | Court |
Referenced in the citation for Bowen v. Maynard, indicating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
|
| 2d Cir. | Court |
Referenced in the citation for Watson v. Greene, indicating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
| Tenth Circuit | Court |
Mentioned as the court that made a finding in the Bowen case.
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of an investigation where a confidential informant was essential.
|
| DOJ | Government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00005581', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Key Quotes (7)
"did not see the perpetrator’s face"Source
— a witness at trial
(An example of exculpatory information from the case Lindsey v. King.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #1
"essential to [the Government’s] investigation"Source
— confidential informant
(Describing the role of a confidential informant in the Kyles case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #2
"replete with inconsistencies"Source
— confidential informant
(Describing statements made by a confidential informant in the Kyles case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #3
"attack[] the reliability of the investigation"Source
— the courts
(Explaining how exculpatory information could be used, as stated in the Kyles case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #4
"thoroughness"Source
— the defense
(A principle the defense uses to argue for eliciting information about an investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #5
"prosecution improperly withheld evidence that, had it been disclosed, would have ‘raised opportunities to attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation.’"Source
— Kyles case
(Describing the central issue in the Kyles case, cited by the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #6
"no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses"Source
— Watson v. Greene case
(A quote from Watson v. Greene explaining that the Kyles case does not provide guidance on the admission of evidence for cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,042 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 27 of 40
particular set of circumstances, and none address evidentiary rulings. Instead, these cases concern
Brady errors involving the withholding of exculpatory information, such as a statement in which
a witness at trial stated that he “did not see the perpetrator’s face,” Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034,
1036 (5th Cir. 1985), or evidence pointing toward an alternative perpetrator, Bowen v. Maynard,
799 F.2d 593, 612 (10th Cir. 1986). See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46 (confidential informant
“essential to [the Government’s] investigation” made statements “replete with inconsistencies”).
In addition to the obvious exculpatory value of this information, the courts explained that it would
be used to “attack[] the reliability of the investigation.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446.
The defense would rest a pile of irrelevant evidence on this slender reed. In their view,
from the principle that the defense can attack the “thoroughness” of an investigation, they may
elicit any information aimed at explaining—and attacking—the decisionmaking of the agents and
prosecutors involved in a case. Kyles, the case chiefly cited by the defense, is about whether the
“prosecution improperly withheld evidence that, had it been disclosed, would have ‘raised
opportunities to attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation.’ Kyles
provides no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning
must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses,”
Watson v. Greene, 640 F.3d 501, 512 n.11 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added, alteration in original,
citation omitted), nor do the other cases.
Even if the cases cited by the defense spoke directly to this context, and not the limits of
Brady material, they still would not reach so far. For instance, in Bowen, the Tenth Circuit found
that if the defense had been provided information about the alternative perpetrator, they could have
Brady errors involving the withholding of exculpatory information, such as a statement in which
a witness at trial stated that he “did not see the perpetrator’s face,” Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034,
1036 (5th Cir. 1985), or evidence pointing toward an alternative perpetrator, Bowen v. Maynard,
799 F.2d 593, 612 (10th Cir. 1986). See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46 (confidential informant
“essential to [the Government’s] investigation” made statements “replete with inconsistencies”).
In addition to the obvious exculpatory value of this information, the courts explained that it would
be used to “attack[] the reliability of the investigation.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446.
The defense would rest a pile of irrelevant evidence on this slender reed. In their view,
from the principle that the defense can attack the “thoroughness” of an investigation, they may
elicit any information aimed at explaining—and attacking—the decisionmaking of the agents and
prosecutors involved in a case. Kyles, the case chiefly cited by the defense, is about whether the
“prosecution improperly withheld evidence that, had it been disclosed, would have ‘raised
opportunities to attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation.’ Kyles
provides no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning
must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses,”
Watson v. Greene, 640 F.3d 501, 512 n.11 (2d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added, alteration in original,
citation omitted), nor do the other cases.
Even if the cases cited by the defense spoke directly to this context, and not the limits of
Brady material, they still would not reach so far. For instance, in Bowen, the Tenth Circuit found
that if the defense had been provided information about the alternative perpetrator, they could have
26
DOJ-OGR-00005581
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document