DOJ-OGR-00005586.jpg
806 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
806 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the defense's attempts to introduce certain evidence. The prosecution contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein is irrelevant to the current case and that the fact the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after a Florida investigation is not admissible to challenge the credibility of Minor Victim-4. The document suggests that introducing these elements would mislead the jury and open the door to rebuttal from the government about the circumstances of the prior investigation.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as a party to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a U.S. Attorney's Office.
|
|
| Minor Victim-4 | Victim/Witness |
The subject of a section discussing the relevance of the defendant not being charged by the USAO-SDFL to her credibil...
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal proceedings. The document discusses the defense's arguments regarding evidence and the defen...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office | Government agency |
Mentioned as having an agreement (NPA) with Epstein that resolved an investigation.
|
| USAO-SDFL | Government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which did not charge the defendant after the Florida...
|
| FBI | Government agency |
Mentioned as having interviewed Minor Victim-4.
|
| Government | Government entity |
Refers to the prosecution, which is permitted to rebut the defense's arguments.
|
Timeline (4 events)
An investigation in New York, which the defense wants to introduce arguments about.
New York
A Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was made between Epstein and a U.S. Attorney's Office.
Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the FBI and, according to the defense, did not implicate the defendant.
Relationships (2)
The document states there was a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and a U.S. Attorney's Office.
The defense argues that Minor Victim-4's credibility is questionable because she was interviewed by the FBI and did not implicate the defendant at that time.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,420 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 32 of 40
In any event, even if the NPA were admissible, that would not open the door to introducing the defense’s wish list of arguments about the New York and Florida investigations. The NPA is an agreement between Epstein and a different U.S. Attorney’s Office that resolved a different investigation, with provisions that—the defense argues—are useful impeachment for two witnesses. Conducting that impeachment does not require the defense to offer evidence about why the New York investigation started, or the timing of charges against the defendant, or various investigators’ views of the quantum of evidence generated against the defendant at any time.¹⁴
C. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4’s Credibility
The defense argues that the fact that the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after the Florida investigation is probative of Minor Victim-4’s credibility, because Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the FBI at the time and did not implicate the defendant (according to the defendant). The defense brief again recites at length its view of her statements to law enforcement. (Def. Opp. at 36-39). That argument is incorrect. The defense is free to cross-examine Minor
¹⁴ The defense suggests that telling the jury that the defendant was not charged in the NPA is necessary because the jury might otherwise speculate on how the Florida investigation ended and whether the defendant was charged in that investigation. (Def. Opp. at 31). That point highlights that the defense intends to use the NPA, even if elicited on cross, as a proxy for the argument that the defendant was not charged in the Florida investigation. There is no reason to think the jury will so speculate if they do not learn how the Florida investigation terminated. But if they do so learn, they might incorrectly assume that the defendant was not charged solely because that investigation could not have generated inculpatory evidence against the defendant, which the Government is permitted to rebut. Although the defense argues that the Government would not discuss the circumstances of the NPA (Id. at 31), the Government might have to do so if the NPA becomes central to the defense case and is used to invite the jury to think that no evidence inculpating the defendant existed in 2007.
31
DOJ-OGR-00005586
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document