DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as affidavits, to establish a genuine factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The filing contrasts the current defendant's lack of evidence with several precedent cases (Aleman, Sattar, Feldman) where hearings were granted because defendants submitted supporting affidavits or made uncontested assertions.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Aleman | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002).
|
| Sattar | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
|
| Feldman | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019).
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context that the current defendant has not offered affidavits from his former defense attorneys.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Refers to the court presiding over the current case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
| Second Circuit | Judicial body |
A U.S. Court of Appeals cited for its rulings in United States v. Aleman and United States v. Feldman.
|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the legal cases mentioned.
|
| DOJ | Government agency |
Appears in the document control number 'DOJ-OGR-00002983' at the bottom of the page.
|
Timeline (4 events)
The defendant in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing regarding a plea or non-prosecution agreement.
The Court
defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Sattar.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that the defendant has not offered any affidavits from 'Epstein’s former defense attorneys', indicating a past professional relationship.
Key Quotes (2)
"where the existence or scope of a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement is in genuine dispute."Source
— The defendant (arguing)
(Cited from the defendant's motion (Def. Mot. 1 at 29) as the condition under which courts conduct evidentiary hearings.)
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
Quote #1
"a district court need not conduct a hearing every time a defendant summarily accuses the government of failing to live up to an alleged bargain."Source
— Second Circuit
(A quote from the ruling in United States v. Aleman, used to argue against the defendant's request for a hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,166 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 49 of 239
the defendant asks this Court to authorize an extensive and burdensome fishing expedition, premised on the defendant’s pure conjecture. The Court should deny the motion.
Although the defendant asserts that the Court is obligated to conduct a hearing, she has failed to establish that any hearing is warranted. The defendant argues that courts conduct evidentiary hearings “where the existence or scope of a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement is in genuine dispute.” (Def. Mot. 1 at 29). But the defendant has not established any genuine factual dispute in this case that a hearing would be required to resolve. The defendant has offered bare conclusions in support of her motion, which are refuted by governing law, record evidence, and the four corners of the agreement itself. That is not a basis for a hearing.
As the Second Circuit explained in United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002), “a district court need not conduct a hearing every time a defendant summarily accuses the government of failing to live up to an alleged bargain.” Id. at 91. In that case, the court held that a hearing was required because the defendant had submitted affidavits from his attorney, as well as corroborating affidavits from other attorneys, and the Government had not submitted any evidence. Id.; see also United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (applying Aleman, and ordering an evidentiary hearing based upon the defendant’s submission of an affidavit from an attorney with knowledge of the alleged oral agreement). Similarly, in United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held that a hearing was required based on the defendant’s uncontested assertions about specific representations made to him by a prosecutor. Id. at 184, 190. Here, by contrast, the defendant has offered no evidence in support of her allegations.
The defendant cannot seriously argue that she has made the type of showing that requires a hearing. For example, she has not offered any affidavits from Epstein’s former defense attorneys
22
DOJ-OGR-00002983
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document