DOJ-OGR-00002366(1).jpg
655 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
655 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the government violated due process by materially misrepresenting facts to a court. It cites several legal precedents to assert that a prosecutor's primary duty is to seek justice, not just convictions, and that the prosecutor is presumed to have full knowledge of their case file, with their actions being attributable to the government as a whole. The document concludes that the Assistant U.S. Attorney failed in their basic duty to ensure their representations to a federal judge were true and complete.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Assistant U.S. Attorney | Assistant U.S. Attorney |
Mentioned as the individual whose personal knowledge is discussed and who allegedly did not discharge the basic funct...
|
| federal prosecutor | federal prosecutor |
Discussed in the context of their duty to seek justice, check files for accuracy, and represent the government.
|
| federal judge | federal judge |
Mentioned as the recipient of representations made by the federal prosecutor.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Accused of violating due process through misconduct and misrepresentation of facts. The prosecutor's office acts as i...
|
Timeline (2 events)
The government is accused of violating due process by materially misrepresenting facts before a court.
court
The government allegedly mischaracterized the substance of grand jury testimony.
grand jury
Relationships (1)
The document states that the prosecutor's office is the 'spokesman for the Government' and that their actions and promises are attributed to the Government.
Key Quotes (3)
"[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict."Source
— Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987)
(Cited to define the fundamental duty of a public prosecutor under the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee.)
DOJ-OGR-00002366(1).jpg
Quote #1
"An individual prosecutor is presumed . . . to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office’s investigation of the case."Source
— United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998)
(Used to argue that an Assistant U.S. Attorney's personal knowledge is irrelevant because they are presumed to know all information from the investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00002366(1).jpg
Quote #2
"The prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government."Source
— Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972)
(Cited to establish that the actions and representations of an individual prosecutor are legally considered the actions of the Government itself.)
DOJ-OGR-00002366(1).jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,865 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 23
Had [REDACTED] known the truth, [REDACTED] likely would not have granted the government’s application to modify the Protective Order to allow [REDACTED] to comply with the subpoena.
3. The government violated due process.
The government’s conduct cannot be squared with elemental due process. U.S. CONST. amend. V. Pursuant to this guarantee, “[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). The government engages in misconduct and violates due process when it materially misrepresents facts before a court. See United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565, 570 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that the government violated due process and reversing conviction when the government mischaracterized the substance of grand jury testimony).
The prosecutor may well have known that his representations to [REDACTED] were false (or at best misleading). But the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s personal knowledge doesn’t matter. “An individual prosecutor is presumed . . . to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office’s investigation of the case.” United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) (“The prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government.”). At the barest minimum, a federal prosecutor has a duty to check the entire file to ensure that his representations to a federal judge, submitted on behalf of the office he serves and under oath, are true and complete. The Assistant U.S. Attorney did not discharge that basic function.
14
DOJ-OGR-00002366
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document