DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
689 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
689 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing from the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should deny the defendant's motion to preclude co-conspirator statements at trial, asserting the defense has misread a prior court order and is seeking an unprecedented remedy. The Government maintains that its handling of co-conspirator statements aligns with the established law of the Second Circuit.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| defendant | defendant |
The party who filed a motion to compel the Government to identify co-conspirator statements before trial.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, arguing against the defendant's motion.
|
| the Court | judicial body |
The judicial body presiding over case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which issued the September 3, 2021 Order.
|
| Second Circuit | judicial body |
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose legal precedents on co-conspirator statements are cited by the Government.
|
| District Court | judicial body |
Mentioned in a 1987 case citation (In re U.S.) where its order was reversed by the Second Circuit.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1987
The Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in 'In re U.S.', reversing a District Court's order that directed the Government to produce oral statements from defendants and coconspirators.
2021-09-03
The Court issued a pretrial order which is central to the dispute between the defense and the Government.
Relationships (1)
The document details a legal dispute where the Government is arguing against a motion filed by the defendant in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (4)
"any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful utility."Source
— defendant
(Quoted from the defendant's Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 148) to argue that the conditional admission of co-conspirator statements would be prejudicial.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #1
"proffer from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible."Source
— defendant
(The defendant's request to the Court as a remedy for the potential prejudice of admitting co-conspirator statements.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #2
"the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable under Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act."Source
— the Government
(Quoted from the Government's Opposition filing (Dkt. No. 204) to explain the legal precedent against the defendant's request.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #3
"produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the"Source
— District Court (in a reversed order)
(A portion of a District Court order that was reversed by the Second Circuit in the 1987 case 'In re U.S.', cited by the Government as precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,009 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 56 of 84
802(d)(2)(E) because it claims the Government failed to comply with the Court’s September 3, 2021 Order. (Def. Mot. 1 at 1). The defense misreads this Court’s September 3, 2021 Order to require the Government to do something unprecedented: identify and itemize for the defense each and every co-conspirator statement it plans to use at trial, seven weeks in advance of trial. Then, complaining that the Government has not complied with the defense’s peculiar reading, the defense seeks an extraordinary remedy: precluding the Government from offering any co-conspirator statements at trial. Each step of this analysis is erroneous, and the Court should deny the motion.
A. Background
The defendant first sought to compel the Government to identify the co-conspirator statements it plans to use at trial in its initial round of pretrial motions. There, the defendant argued that the Second Circuit’s practice of conditional admission of co-conspirator statements at trial would prejudice her because “any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful utility.” (Mem. of Law at 13, Dkt. No. 148). She therefore asked the Court to order a “proffer from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible.” (Id. at 13-14).
In response, the Government observed that the practice of conditional admission of co-conspirator statements is the law of the Circuit, notwithstanding the defense’s preference to the contrary. (Gov’t Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Government also explained that “the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are discoverable under Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act.” (Id.). See In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing District Court’s order directing the Government to “produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the
55
DOJ-OGR-00005839
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document