DOJ-OGR-00005861.jpg
732 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
732 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of the Government's response to a defense motion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's request to prohibit the use of the word 'victim' when referring to the 'Minor Victims' during the trial. The prosecution contends that using the term is part of its legitimate litigating position and not improper vouching for witness credibility, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support its stance.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal motion, who moves to preclude the use of the word 'victim'.
|
| Minor Victims | Alleged victims |
The group of individuals the prosecution refers to as 'victims', which the defense objects to.
|
| Arias-Javier | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Arias-Javier'.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in a footnote as a hypothetical abuser of the Minor Victims.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
Represents the prosecution in the case, arguing for the use of the word 'victim'.
|
| 2d Cir. | Court |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in 'United States v. Arias-Javier, 392 F. App’x 896,...
|
Timeline (2 events)
The defendant filed a motion (Def. Mot. 12) to preclude the use of the word 'victim' at trial.
Relationships (3)
The defendant is on trial for alleged crimes against the 'Minor Victims'.
A footnote presents a hypothetical scenario where the defendant might concede the Minor Victims were abused by Epstein but disclaim their own involvement.
A footnote mentions a hypothetical scenario where the defense might concede that 'the victims were abused by Epstein'.
Key Quotes (4)
"victim"Source
— N/A
(The word at the center of the legal argument, which the defendant wants to preclude trial participants from using.)
DOJ-OGR-00005861.jpg
Quote #1
"necessarily conveys the speaker’s opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible."Source
— The defendant's counsel
(Quoted from the defense's motion (Def. Mot. 12 at 1) to describe the alleged effect of using the word 'victim'.)
DOJ-OGR-00005861.jpg
Quote #2
"The prosecutor is permitted vigorously to argue for the jury to find its witnesses credible as long as it does not link its own credibility to that of the witness or imply the existence of extraneous proof supporting the witness’s"Source
— 2d Cir. Court
(A quote from a summary order in the case United States v. Arias-Javier, cited by the Government to support its argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00005861.jpg
Quote #3
"there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something"Source
— The defendant's counsel
(A quote from the defense's motion, used to contrast the current case with cases where victim status is not disputed.)
DOJ-OGR-00005861.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,197 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 78 of 84
The defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from using the word “victim” to refer to any of the Minor Victims. The Government expects that it will use the word “victim,” particularly in jury addresses, but such use is not improper vouching or prejudicial to the defense. The Government also expects its expert to use the word “victim,” but she will testify about victims generally and not any victims in this case specifically. The Government does not otherwise expect its witnesses to use the word “victim.” To the extent they do, however, it is not prejudicial to the defense.²⁰
The defendant cites no federal case that has accepted its argument. Nor does this argument make sense. The erroneous premise in the defense argument is that referring to someone as a “victim” “necessarily conveys the speaker’s opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible.” (Def. Mot. 12 at 1). That is incorrect. The Government’s references to “victims” are part of its theory of the case. Use of that term in a jury address is not an expression of counsel’s opinion; it is the Government’s litigating position, just like referencing someone as the “shooter” in a shooting case or the “dealer” in a narcotics case. See United States v. Arias-Javier, 392 F. App’x 896, 898 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (“The prosecutor is permitted vigorously to argue for the jury to find its witnesses credible as long as it does not link its own credibility to that of the witness or imply the existence of extraneous proof supporting the witness’s
---
²⁰ Notably, the defense motion is entirely premised on the notion that the parties disagree about whether the Minor Victims are in fact victims of any crime. If the defense concedes at any point that the Minor Victims are victims of any crime—for example, if the defendant concedes the victims were abused by Epstein but disclaims knowledge or involvement—their argument in support of this motion collapses entirely. (Def. Mot. 12 at 1 (contrasting this case with cases in which “there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something”)).
77
DOJ-OGR-00005861
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document