DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
727 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
7
Events
6
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
727 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, discusses the legal standard for challenging an affidavit based on alleged omissions of fact. It cites numerous precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York, to argue that a motion to suppress evidence should be denied unless the omissions were intentional, deliberate, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The document emphasizes that this is a high standard to meet, as courts recognize that all affidavits will inevitably omit some facts that may seem significant in retrospect.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martin | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2005)'.
|
| Lambus | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399'.
|
| Rivera | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991)'.
|
| Franks | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in reference to the 'intent prong of Franks' and a 'Franks challenge', which refers to the legal precedent ...
|
| Awadallah | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68'.
|
| Lahey | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)'.
|
| Vilar | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. ...
|
| DeFilippo | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan...
|
| Falso | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Falso, 544 F.3d at 125'.
|
| Pizarro | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Appears as a party in multiple legal cases, such as 'United States v. Martin' and 'Rivera v. United States'.
|
| 2d Cir. | court |
Referenced in case citations, indicating the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | court |
Referenced in case citations, indicating the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as 'DOJ-OGR-00003075', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (7 events)
2007-04-04
2018-01-31
2018-04-10
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in several case citations as the location of the court (Southern District of New York).
|
Relationships (6)
The document cites the case 'United States v. Martin', indicating a legal proceeding between the two parties.
The document cites the case 'Rivera v. United States', indicating a legal proceeding between the two parties.
The document cites the case 'United States v. Lahey', indicating a legal proceeding between the two parties.
The document cites the case 'United States v. Vilar', indicating a legal proceeding between the two parties.
The document cites the case 'United States v. DeFilippo', indicating a legal proceeding between the two parties.
The document cites the case 'United States v. Pizarro', indicating a legal proceeding between the two parties.
Key Quotes (6)
"there remains a residue of independent and lawful information sufficient to support probable cause."Source
— United States v. Martin
(Describing the 'ultimate inquiry' after correcting alleged errors or omissions in an affidavit.)
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
Quote #1
"[E]ven if the misrepresented or omitted information was material, a motion to suppress is to be denied unless the misrepresentations or omissions were intentional or deliberate, or were made in reckless disregard for the truth."Source
— Lambus
(Stating the standard for suppressing evidence based on misrepresentations or omissions.)
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
Quote #2
"Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead."Source
— Awadallah
(Explaining the intent prong of a Franks challenge with respect to omissions.)
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
Quote #3
"‘[a]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,’ and it is therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit ‘omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.’"Source
— United States v. Lahey (quoting United States v. Vilar)
(Justifying the inherent nature of omissions in affidavits.)
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
Quote #4
"As courts in this Circuit have recognized, it is not shocking that every affidavit will omit facts which, in retrospect, seem significant."Source
— United States v. DeFilippo
(Reinforcing the idea that omissions in affidavits are common and not necessarily problematic.)
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
Quote #5
"[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law."Source
— United States v. Pizarro
(Stating that mere allegations without substance are insufficient for a Franks challenge.)
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,130 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 141 of 239
alleged omissions and correcting the alleged errors, the “ultimate inquiry” is whether “there remains a residue of independent and lawful information sufficient to support probable cause.” United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
“[E]ven if the misrepresented or omitted information was material, a motion to suppress is to be denied unless the misrepresentations or omissions were intentional or deliberate, or were made in reckless disregard for the truth.” Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent’s affidavit is a “high one.” Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. “Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead.” Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, “‘[a]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,’ and it is therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit ‘omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.’” United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007)); see also United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) (“As courts in this Circuit have recognized, it is not shocking that every affidavit will omit facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
The “substantial preliminary showing” requirement explained above exists to “avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful.” Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. “[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law.” United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018); see also
114
DOJ-OGR-00003075
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document