DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
782 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
7
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
782 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the standard for proving a Fifth Amendment due process violation is extremely high, requiring government conduct that is so egregious it "shocks the conscience." The text cites numerous legal precedents, including cases like Rochin, to illustrate that such violations typically involve severe invasions of individual rights and bodily integrity, and notes the defendant bears a "very heavy" burden of proof.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lewis | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998).
|
| Albright | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272 (1993).
|
| Oliver | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272 (1993).
|
| Walters | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 27 (2d Cir. 2018).
|
| Loera | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172, 184 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).
|
| Schmidt | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997).
|
| Coke | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22,...
|
| Rochin | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation Rochin, 342 U.S. at 172, 72 S. Ct. 205.
|
| Myers | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982).
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| County of Sacramento | Government agency |
Party in the case County of Sacramento v. Lewis.
|
| United States | Government |
Party in the cases United States v. Walters, United States v. Loera, United States v. Schmidt, United States v. Coke,...
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Cited as the court of decision for several cases (2d Cir.) and mentioned as having explained the paradigm examples of...
|
| U.S. Supreme Court | Court |
Implied by the citations to U.S. reports (e.g., 523 U.S. 833).
|
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York | Court |
Cited as the court of decision for United States v. Loera (E.D.N.Y.).
|
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | Court |
Cited as the court of decision for United States v. Coke (S.D.N.Y.).
|
Timeline (7 events)
1982
1997
The case of United States v. Schmidt was decided.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
1998
The case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis was decided.
U.S. Supreme Court
2011-08-22
The case of United States v. Coke was decided.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
2018
The case of United States v. Walters was decided.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
2018
The case of United States v. Loera was decided.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Key Quotes (4)
"[t]he protections of substantive due process have for the most part been accorded to matters relating to marriage, family, procreation, and the right to bodily integrity."Source
— Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272 (1993)
(Quoted to define the scope of substantive due process protections.)
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
Quote #1
"To succeed on a claim that the government’s conduct in pursuit of evidence violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process rights, the government’s method of acquiring the evidence must be so egregious that it ‘shocks the conscience.’"Source
— United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 27 (2d Cir. 2018)
(Quoted to state the high standard for a due process violation claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
Quote #2
"The concept of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee is violated by government action that is fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense of justice, or conduct that is ‘so outrageous’ that common notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused."Source
— United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997)
(Quoted to define what constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee.)
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
Quote #3
"Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasions of individual rights, or coercion."Source
— United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011)
(Quoted to describe the nature of behavior that meets the 'conscience shocking' standard.)
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,306 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 132 of 239
government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 272 (1993) (“[t]he protections of substantive due process have for the most part been accorded to matters relating to marriage, family, procreation, and the right to bodily integrity.”).
The defendant bears the “‘very heavy’ burden of establishing a due process violation.” United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). “To succeed on a claim that the government’s conduct in pursuit of evidence violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process rights, the government’s method of acquiring the evidence must be so egregious that it ‘shocks the conscience.’” United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172, 184 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The concept of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee is violated by government action that is fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense of justice, or conduct that is ‘so outrageous’ that common notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused.” United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasions of individual rights, or coercion.” United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Second Circuit has explained:
The paradigm examples of conscience-shocking conduct are egregious invasions of individual rights. See, e.g., Rochin, 342 U.S. at 172, 72 S. Ct. 205 (breaking into suspect’s bedroom, forcibly attempting to pull capsules from his throat, and pumping his stomach without his consent). Especially in view of the courts’ well-established deference to the Government’s choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous
The defendant bears the “‘very heavy’ burden of establishing a due process violation.” United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). “To succeed on a claim that the government’s conduct in pursuit of evidence violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process rights, the government’s method of acquiring the evidence must be so egregious that it ‘shocks the conscience.’” United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172, 184 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The concept of fairness embodied in the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee is violated by government action that is fundamentally unfair or shocking to our traditional sense of justice, or conduct that is ‘so outrageous’ that common notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused.” United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasions of individual rights, or coercion.” United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Second Circuit has explained:
The paradigm examples of conscience-shocking conduct are egregious invasions of individual rights. See, e.g., Rochin, 342 U.S. at 172, 72 S. Ct. 205 (breaking into suspect’s bedroom, forcibly attempting to pull capsules from his throat, and pumping his stomach without his consent). Especially in view of the courts’ well-established deference to the Government’s choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous
105
DOJ-OGR-00003066
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document