DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
6
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant/Party in the case |
Mentioned as making a legal argument that the government is attempting to counter.
|
| McDonough | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the case citation McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556 and the 'McDonough test'.
|
| Stewart | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned as a case the government ignores.
|
| Shaoul | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the case United States v. Shaoul, which the government relies on.
|
| Langford | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned as a case the government is trying to minimize and which is inconsistent with Shaoul.
|
| Justice Blackmun | Justice |
Mentioned for his concurring opinion in a case not cited by Shaoul.
|
| Justice Brennan | Justice |
Mentioned for his opinion concurring in judgment in a case not cited by Shaoul.
|
| Jama | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the case Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t.
|
| Wilkerson | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the case United States v. Wilkerson.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cited cases 'United States v. Shaoul' and 'United States v. Wilkerson'.
|
| Immigr. & Customs Enf’t | government agency |
Party in the cited case 'Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t'.
|
| United States Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the source of the McDonough opinion and an authority that can overrule Court of Appeals panels.
|
| Court of Appeals | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its panels being bound by prior decisions.
|
| Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. | organization |
Party in the cited case 'Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.'.
|
| Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys. | government agency |
Party in the cited case 'Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.'.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00009207', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (6 events)
1994
The court decided the case of United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811 (2d Cir. 1994).
2d Cir.
1999
The court decided the case of Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 195 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
D.C. Cir.
2004
The court decided the case of United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 2004).
2d Cir.
2005
The Supreme Court decided the case of Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335.
United States Supreme Court
2006
The court decided a case reported at 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006), which cited McDonough.
2d Cir.
2022-02-24
Document 616 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Relationships (1)
The document describes the government's legal arguments as being in opposition to Ms. Maxwell's arguments, stating 'The government’s invocation of Shaoul fails' and 'Shaoul did not reject the argument Ms. Maxwell makes here.'
Key Quotes (4)
"satisfy the second part of the McDonough test—that the juror could have been challenged for cause."Source
— Shaoul Court
(Quoted as the holding of the Shaoul court, which made other discussions in the opinion non-essential dictum.)
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
Quote #1
"Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it."Source
— Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t
(Quoted to support the argument that the government's reliance on language from Shaoul is invalid because that language was dictum.)
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
Quote #2
"bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court"Source
— United States v. Wilkerson
(Quoted to explain the principle of stare decisis within a Court of Appeals.)
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
Quote #3
"In the event of conflicting panel opinions . . . the earlier one controls, as one panel of this court may not overrule"Source
— Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.
(Quoted to argue that if Shaoul conflicts with the earlier Langford decision, Langford should be the controlling precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,061 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 17 of 32
433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556). Ms. Maxwell need not prove a deliberate falsehood. Id.
The government all but ignores Stewart, relying on United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811 (2d Cir. 1994), in an effort to minimize Langford. The government’s invocation of Shaoul fails.
First, Shaoul did not reject the argument Ms. Maxwell makes here. Nowhere in Shaoul does the Court cite or discuss Justice Blackmun’s concurring opinion or Justice Brennan’s opinion concurring in judgment, which together were supported by five justices. See Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815-17. This Court should not read Shaoul to have rejected an argument it did not even consider.
Second, the language from Shaoul on which the government relies is dictum. That’s because the Shaoul Court held that the defendant could not “satisfy the second part of the McDonough test—that the juror could have been challenged for cause.” Id. at 816. The Court’s discussion of deliberate-versus-inadvertent false answers thus was not necessary to its conclusion, and this Court is not bound by it. Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 352 n.12 (2005) (“Dictum settles nothing, even in the court that utters it.”).
Third, if the government’s reading of Shaoul were correct, then Shaoul is inconsistent with Langford, not to mention McDonough. Because Langford was decided first, and because McDonough is a United States Supreme Court opinion, this Court is bound by both and not by Shaoul. Compare United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) (one panel of the Court of Appeals is “bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court”), with Indep. Cmty. Bankers of Am. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 195 F.3d 28, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“In the event of conflicting panel opinions . . . the earlier one controls, as one panel of this court may not overrule
12
DOJ-OGR-00009207
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document