DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
730 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
730 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on the Fifth Amendment. The central argument is that the evidence, obtained from depositions conducted by the private law firm Boies Schiller in a separate civil case, is admissible because Boies Schiller was not an agent of the Government, and therefore the defendant's statements were not compelled by the state. The document cites multiple legal precedents to establish that the Fifth Amendment only protects against officially coerced self-incrimination.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tucker |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 440 (1974)'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller | Law firm |
Mentioned as the entity that deposed the defendant in a civil case and was argued not to be an agent of the Government.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment.
Defendant
The defendant responded to Boies Schiller’s questions during two depositions.
Defendant
Boies Schiller
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case name 'United States v. Washington'.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case name 'Michigan v. Tucker'.
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant
→
Adversarial (legal)
→
Government
The document outlines the government's opposition to the defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case.
Boies Schiller deposed the defendant in a civil case, and the defendant's responses are now the subject of a motion to suppress in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (6)
"No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."Source
— U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment
(Quoted as the pertinent part of the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
Quote #1
"demonstrate the existence of three elements: 1) compulsion, 2) a testimonial communication, and 3) the incriminating nature of that communication."Source
— In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166, 1168 (1987)
(Cited as the requirements to establish a Fifth Amendment violation.)
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
Quote #2
"axiomatic that the Amendment does not automatically preclude self-incrimination, whether spontaneous or in response to questions put by government officials."Source
— United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 186 (1977)
(Quoted to argue that the Fifth Amendment does not bar all self-incrimination.)
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
Quote #3
"Indeed, far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable."Source
— United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187 (1977)
(Quoted to support the idea that non-coerced admissions are permissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
Quote #4
"[T]he Fifth Amendment proscribes only self-incrimination obtained by a ‘genuine compulsion of testimony.’"Source
— United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187 (1977) (quoting Michigan v. Tucker)
(Quoted to emphasize that only compelled testimony is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
Quote #5
"Absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions."Source
— Washington, 431 U.S. at 187
(Cited to argue that without official coercion, even damning admissions do not violate the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,116 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 123 of 239
3. The Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit
The defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fifth Amendment grounds fails for multiple, independent reasons. As an initial matter, Boies Schiller is not the Government and was not acting as an agent of the Government when it deposed the defendant or otherwise litigated the civil case against her. That the defendant may regret her choice to respond to Boies Schiller’s questions during two depositions instead of invoking her privilege against self-incrimination does not transform that choice into a Fifth Amendment violation.
a. Applicable Law
i. The Fifth Amendment – Generally
The Fifth Amendment provides in pertinent part: “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. To establish a Fifth Amendment violation, an individual must “demonstrate the existence of three elements: 1) compulsion, 2) a testimonial communication, and 3) the incriminating nature of that communication.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166, 1168 (1987); see also, e.g., In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024, 1028 (2d Cir. 1988).
It is “axiomatic that the Amendment does not automatically preclude self-incrimination, whether spontaneous or in response to questions put by government officials.” United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 186 (1977). “Indeed, far from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable.” Id. at 187. “[T]he Fifth Amendment proscribes only self-incrimination obtained by a ‘genuine compulsion of testimony.’” Id. (quoting Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 440 (1974)); see also Washington, 431 U.S. at 187 (“Absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions.”). Nor does the Constitution “prohibit every
96
DOJ-OGR-00003057
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document