DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
666 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
666 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues for the admissibility of testimony from 'Minor Victim-3' and other victims as direct evidence in a conspiracy case. The prosecution contends this evidence, including overt acts detailed in the indictment, is probative of the defendant's intent and not inadmissible 'other-acts' evidence. The document cites legal precedents, such as United States v. James, to support the argument that acts like drug possession can be considered direct evidence of a conspiracy when charged as overt acts.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Victims | Victim |
Mentioned as providing accounts that are being corroborated.
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal filing, whose intent and alleged role in a conspiracy are being discussed.
|
| Curley | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Curley.
|
| Minor Victim-3 | Victim |
Their testimony is cited as direct evidence of the offense and overt acts in the indictment.
|
| James | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. James, specifically regarding possession of marijuana as an overt act.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as having proffered evidence relating to Minor Victim-3.
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as having previously denied a defense motion to strike overt acts.
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses the Defendant's alleged role in enticing Minor Victims to engage in sex acts as part of a conspiracy.
The document states that Minor Victim-3's testimony concerns acts taken by the defendant in furtherance of conspiracies and that overt acts involving this victim are contained in the Indictment.
Key Quotes (4)
"[I]t is anticipated that the three witnesses will provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant’s alleged role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts."Source
— Op. & Order at 10, Dkt. No. 106
(Quoted as part of the argument that testimony is corroborative and direct evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
Quote #1
"similar in nature and severity"Source
— United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 2011)
(Used to describe how earlier abuse demonstrated a pattern of activity probative of intent.)
DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
Quote #2
"James’s possession of five pounds of marijuana on December 22, 2005, and December 2, 2010, were charged as overt acts in the indictment. Accordingly, evidence of James’s possession of marijuana on these occasions was not subject to the structures of Rule 404(b)."Source
— United States v. James, 520 F. App’x 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order)
(Cited as precedent for why evidence of overt acts is direct evidence of an offense and not other-acts evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
Quote #3
"may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as"Source
— The Court
(The Court's explanation for previously denying a defense motion to strike overt acts involving Minor Victim-3.)
DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,891 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 47 of 84
corroborative of the accounts of the other Minor Victims. It is also direct evidence of the operation of the conspiracy that is probative of the defendant’s intent at the time of the offense. See Op. & Order at 10, Dkt. No. 106 (“[I]t is anticipated that the three witnesses will provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant’s alleged role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts.”); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining in an interstate stalking case that evidence of earlier abuse that was “similar in nature and severity” demonstrated a “pattern of activity that was probative of [the defendant’s] intent”).
Minor Victim-3’s testimony is also direct evidence of the offense because it concerns acts taken by the defendant in furtherance of the conspiracies. In particular, [REDACTED]
Indeed, at a minimum, the defense motion should be denied because the Government’s proffered evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the overt acts involving Minor Victim-3 contained in the Indictment. (Indictment ¶¶ 13(d), 19(d)). Evidence proving overt acts in the Indictment is direct evidence of the offense, and not other-acts evidence. See United States v. James, 520 F. App’x 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (“James’s possession of five pounds of marijuana on December 22, 2005, and December 2, 2010, were charged as overt acts in the indictment. Accordingly, evidence of James’s possession of marijuana on these occasions was not subject to the structures of Rule 404(b).”). The Court previously denied the defense’s motion to strike the overt acts involving Minor Victim-3 as surplusage, explaining that it “may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as
46
DOJ-OGR-00005830
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document