DOJ-OGR-00005846.jpg
725 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
725 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defense's claims of prejudice due to the volume of discovery material. The Government asserts that the defense's complaints are exaggerated, that it has clearly identified the evidence it will use at trial, and that suppression of evidence is not the proper remedy. A footnote clarifies that many co-conspirator statements, such as instructions from Epstein, are admissible on grounds other than the co-conspirator exception to hearsay.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in a footnote as the source of promises, offers, instructions, and directions that witnesses will testify a...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, arguing against the defense's claims of prejudice regarding discovery materials.
|
| Court | judicial body |
The judicial body whose order the Government may have misread, according to the defense.
|
| Supreme Court | judicial body |
Cited in the case Taylor v. Illinois, where it upheld an order.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A trial where the Government plans to use certain statements and evidence, which is the subject of the defense's motion.
Government
defense
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for the case Taylor v. Illinois.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that witnesses will testify about instructions and directions they received from Epstein, indicating he directed their actions.
Key Quotes (3)
"multiple electronic devices” containing “hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades"Source
— defense
(A complaint made by the defense regarding the scope of evidence seized by the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00005846.jpg
Quote #1
"document dumps"Source
— defense
(The defense's characterization of the discovery material provided by the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00005846.jpg
Quote #2
"thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material"Source
— defense
(A complaint from the defense about the volume of material they need to review.)
DOJ-OGR-00005846.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,131 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 63 of 84
Even if the Government has misread the Court’s order, the defense’s claims of prejudice
are exaggerated. Although the defense complains that the Government seized “multiple electronic
devices” containing “hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades” (Def. Mot. 1 at 3),
any statements contained in emails or other documents that the Government plans to use at trial
have been marked as Government exhibits and produced to the defense. The defense need look
no further than the Government’s exhibit list to discover what documents will be offered at trial.
Similarly, although the defense complains of “document dumps” (id. at 2) and the need to review
“thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material” (id. at 7), any witness testimony
containing co-conspirator statements is contained in the Government’s Jencks Act production—
and specifically, the Government’s production of material for testifying witnesses. Although the
Government produced as a courtesy prior statements of non-testifying witnesses, by definition the
Government does not plan to call those individuals at trial. And the Government has informed the
defense of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom it may refer at trial, so the defense
knows exactly which declarants’ statements are possibly subject to the co-conspirator exception.
See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).16
are exaggerated. Although the defense complains that the Government seized “multiple electronic
devices” containing “hundreds of thousands of statements spanning decades” (Def. Mot. 1 at 3),
any statements contained in emails or other documents that the Government plans to use at trial
have been marked as Government exhibits and produced to the defense. The defense need look
no further than the Government’s exhibit list to discover what documents will be offered at trial.
Similarly, although the defense complains of “document dumps” (id. at 2) and the need to review
“thousands of pages of newly provided discovery material” (id. at 7), any witness testimony
containing co-conspirator statements is contained in the Government’s Jencks Act production—
and specifically, the Government’s production of material for testifying witnesses. Although the
Government produced as a courtesy prior statements of non-testifying witnesses, by definition the
Government does not plan to call those individuals at trial. And the Government has informed the
defense of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom it may refer at trial, so the defense
knows exactly which declarants’ statements are possibly subject to the co-conspirator exception.
See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).16
Finally, and in any event, suppression is not a proper remedy. The defense relies
principally on Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), in which the Supreme Court upheld an order
principally on Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), in which the Supreme Court upheld an order
16 To be clear, the defendant’s motion concerns the admission of statements under Rule
801(d)(2)(E). The majority of the statements made by co-conspirators that will be offered at trial
have other bases for admissibility. For example, witnesses will testify regarding promises, offers,
instructions, and directions they received from Epstein. Those statements are not factual assertions
subject to hearsay rules. Rather, they are offered for the effect on the listener, among other reasons.
801(d)(2)(E). The majority of the statements made by co-conspirators that will be offered at trial
have other bases for admissibility. For example, witnesses will testify regarding promises, offers,
instructions, and directions they received from Epstein. Those statements are not factual assertions
subject to hearsay rules. Rather, they are offered for the effect on the listener, among other reasons.
62
DOJ-OGR-00005846
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document