DOJ-OGR-00005843.jpg
696 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
696 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the defense is mistaken in its belief that the Court ordered the specific itemization and isolation of co-conspirator statements from other evidence. The filing asserts that the Court's orders only required the 'disclosure' of these statements and that compelling the Government to segregate them would be unsupported by precedent in the Second Circuit.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the legal case, arguing against the defense's interpretation of a court order.
|
| The Court | judicial body |
The judicial body presiding over the case, which issued orders regarding the disclosure of evidence.
|
| Second Circuit | judicial body |
Refers to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose legal precedent is cited.
|
Timeline (4 events)
The Court set a disclosure schedule for Jencks Act material, adopting the Government's proposal.
The Court ordered the Government to produce the identities of co-conspirators and to 'disclose' all co-conspirator statements.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context that the defense has cited no case from this judicial district to support its argument.
|
Relationships (3)
The document outlines a disagreement between the Government and the defense over the interpretation of a court order regarding the disclosure of co-conspirator statements.
The Court issues orders to the Government regarding the production and disclosure of evidence.
The Court rules on motions and requests made by the defense, such as denying a request for relief in pretrial motions.
Key Quotes (3)
"Government’s proposal"Source
— The Government
(Describing the proposal adopted by the Court for the disclosure schedule of Jencks Act material.)
DOJ-OGR-00005843.jpg
Quote #1
"disclose"Source
— The Court
(Quoting the Court's order to the Government regarding co-conspirator statements.)
DOJ-OGR-00005843.jpg
Quote #2
"disclose statements"Source
— The Government
(Arguing that a requirement to 'disclose statements' is not a requirement to isolate them.)
DOJ-OGR-00005843.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,065 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 60 of 84
The defense errs when it suggests that the Court ordered the Government to specifically itemize any co-conspirator statements contained in its disclosures. When the Court first set a disclosure schedule for Jencks Act material, it adopted the “Government’s proposal,” which opposed any requirement that the Government isolate co-conspirator statements from other witness statements. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). When the Court ordered the Government to produce the identities of co-conspirators, it again ordered the Government to “disclose” all co-conspirator statements, citing the Court’s earlier order. (Order at 2, Dkt. No. 335). Neither order expressly directed the Government to produce a set of co-conspirator statements it would offer at trial separately from the other evidence it would offer at trial.
A requirement to “disclose statements” is not a requirement to isolate statements. For one, the Court denied the defense request for effectively that relief in the first round of pretrial motions. (Op. & Order at 30-31, Dkt. No. 207). For another, in the defense’s many rounds of briefing on this issue, it has cited no case—not from this District, nor any other—in which a Court ordered the Government to segregate and itemize co-conspirator statements from other statements for the convenience of the defense. The Government is aware of no such case—likely because such an order would be in considerable tension with Circuit precedent, see In re U.S., 834 F.2d at 286. For a third, the guiding principle of the defense’s justification for its request is to facilitate litigation of those statements’ admissibility pre-trial. But the law of the Second Circuit is that such statements can be conditionally admitted during the trial, and their admissibility litigated thereafter. See, e.g., United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 273 n.8 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)); Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207. As much
59
DOJ-OGR-00005843
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document