DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a defense attorney argues against the legality of a prosecution. The attorney claims the government is improperly relying on old evidence from a 2007 Florida case and is violating established Department of Justice procedure by prosecuting the same conduct in a second jurisdiction (Georgia) after it was handled in the first (Florida).
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Marrah | Judge |
Mentioned in relation to his decisions in the CVRA case which led to the recusal of Florida prosecutors.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice | Government agency |
Mentioned as having reviewed an NPA in 2008 and as the agency with which one negotiates in interstate cases.
|
| Southern District of Florida | Judicial district |
Identified as the source of evidence from a case in 2007 that the government is currently relying on.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed in the footer of the document, likely the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007
Evidence, including message pads and telephone records, was generated by a case in the Southern District of Florida.
Southern District of Florida
2008
The Department of Justice reviewed the NPA on several occasions and confirmed the appropriateness of the discretion shown in Florida.
Florida
Florida prosecutors were recused from a case as a result of Judge Marrah's decisions in the CVRA case.
Florida
Florida prosecutors
Judge Marrah
Relationships (1)
prosecutors in Florida
→
Professional
→
prosecutors in Georgia
The document states there was communication between them and that the Georgia prosecutors took over the case from the Florida prosecutors after they were recused.
Key Quotes (1)
"I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years, when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate with that district and count on the Department of Justice to what it does every day decade after decade, which is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a prosecution on the very same conduct."Source
— Unnamed criminal defense lawyer
(The speaker, identifying as an experienced defense lawyer, is arguing that the current prosecution violates standard Department of Justice procedure by pursuing a case in a second jurisdiction for conduct already addressed in another.)
DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,648 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 10 of 18
1 and telephonic communications as well as the 1591 category.
2 In addition, the Department of Justice reviewed the
3 NPA on several occasions in 2008 and essentially confirmed that
4 the exercise of discretion shown in Florida was appropriate.
5 But the most important thing is that there was communication
6 between the prosecutors in Florida, perhaps through prosecutors
7 in Georgia that took over the case because the Florida
8 prosecutors were recused as a result of Judge Marrah's
9 decisions in the CVRA case.
10 We know the government is relying in part on evidence
11 that was generated by the Southern District of Florida case
12 back in 2007. They have talked about message pads, telephone
13 records. They are the same message pads and telephone records
14 that reflect conduct that was exclusively 15, 16, 17 years ago.
15 So we do have a principal position that we will put to the
16 Court at the appropriate time regarding the legality of this
17 prosecution and whether or not it is appropriately barred.
18 I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years,
19 when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is
20 one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate
21 with that district and count on the Department of Justice to
22 what it does every day decade after decade, which
23 is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail
24 that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a
25 prosecution on the very same conduct. We will be briefing
2 In addition, the Department of Justice reviewed the
3 NPA on several occasions in 2008 and essentially confirmed that
4 the exercise of discretion shown in Florida was appropriate.
5 But the most important thing is that there was communication
6 between the prosecutors in Florida, perhaps through prosecutors
7 in Georgia that took over the case because the Florida
8 prosecutors were recused as a result of Judge Marrah's
9 decisions in the CVRA case.
10 We know the government is relying in part on evidence
11 that was generated by the Southern District of Florida case
12 back in 2007. They have talked about message pads, telephone
13 records. They are the same message pads and telephone records
14 that reflect conduct that was exclusively 15, 16, 17 years ago.
15 So we do have a principal position that we will put to the
16 Court at the appropriate time regarding the legality of this
17 prosecution and whether or not it is appropriately barred.
18 I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years,
19 when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is
20 one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate
21 with that district and count on the Department of Justice to
22 what it does every day decade after decade, which
23 is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail
24 that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a
25 prosecution on the very same conduct. We will be briefing
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000396
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document