DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
699 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing
File Size:
699 KB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in the case of United States v. Thomas (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). The Court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel disclosure of the Inspector General's report regarding Epstein's death because the report did not exist at the time. Furthermore, the Court rules that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is not considered part of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), as there is no evidence BOP officials participated in the criminal investigation leading to Thomas' indictment.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant/Movant |
Likely Michael Thomas (prison guard); seeking disclosure of materials related to Epstein's death and BOP internal rep...
|
| Epstein | Deceased Subject |
Referenced in context of 'reports... regarding Epstein's death'.
|
| Inspector General | Investigator |
Conducting an investigation; the report did not exist at the time of the order.
|
| Collins | Legal Reference |
Referenced in case citation (Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 239).
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
The entity issuing the order (implied by case header and ruling language).
|
|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; subject of discovery request regarding whether they are part of the prosecution team.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Parent organization of the BOP.
|
|
| MCC |
Metropolitan Correctional Center; mentioned regarding employee disciplinary records.
|
|
| Government |
The Prosecution.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Metropolitan Correctional Center (implied New York context based on case history).
|
Relationships (3)
Thomas filed a motion to compel against the Government; Government opposed.
Text states: 'the BOP is a component of the Department of Justice'
Court concludes BOP was not part of the prosecution team for Rule 16/Brady purposes.
Key Quotes (5)
"The Court cannot grant a motion to compel the Government to produce a report that, at the time of this order, does not exist."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
Quote #1
"Accordingly, Thomas’ motion to compel disclosure of materials related to the Inspector General’s investigation is DENIED."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
Quote #2
"Thomas has adduced no evidence that the Government reviewed information arising from a BOP investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
Quote #3
"Thus, the Court concludes that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team for purposes of Rule 16 and Brady."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
Quote #4
"To be sure, the BOP is a component of the Department of Justice, but that fact standing alone is not sufficient to make the BOP an arm of the prosecution."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,054 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 9
disclose.” Gov’t Opp. at 21–22. The Court cannot grant a motion to compel the Government to
produce a report that, at the time of this order, does not exist.1
produce a report that, at the time of this order, does not exist.1
Accordingly, Thomas’ motion to compel disclosure of materials related to the Inspector
General’s investigation is DENIED.
General’s investigation is DENIED.
III. BOP Materials
Thomas also seeks disclosure of “reports generated by investigators within the [BOP]
regarding” Epstein’s death, and “any and all documents, reports, witness statements and
disciplinary records of any and all MCC employees who have engaged in conduct” similar to
that alleged against Thomas. Motion at 6. However, Thomas has adduced no evidence that the
Government reviewed information arising from a BOP investigation. Nor has he shown that
BOP officials “participated in the prosecution’s witness interviews,” were “involved in
presenting the case to the grand jury,” “reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents
with the prosecution,” “played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy,”
“accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings,” or in any other way played a role in the
investigation that led to the charges against him. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 239 (internal
quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). There is, therefore, no evidence that BOP
personnel participated in the criminal investigation that led to Thomas’ indictment. Thus, the
Court concludes that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team for purposes of Rule 16 and
Brady.
regarding” Epstein’s death, and “any and all documents, reports, witness statements and
disciplinary records of any and all MCC employees who have engaged in conduct” similar to
that alleged against Thomas. Motion at 6. However, Thomas has adduced no evidence that the
Government reviewed information arising from a BOP investigation. Nor has he shown that
BOP officials “participated in the prosecution’s witness interviews,” were “involved in
presenting the case to the grand jury,” “reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents
with the prosecution,” “played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy,”
“accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings,” or in any other way played a role in the
investigation that led to the charges against him. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 239 (internal
quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). There is, therefore, no evidence that BOP
personnel participated in the criminal investigation that led to Thomas’ indictment. Thus, the
Court concludes that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team for purposes of Rule 16 and
Brady.
To be sure, the BOP is a component of the Department of Justice, but that fact standing
alone is not sufficient to make the BOP an arm of the prosecution. “The court cannot find that
alone is not sufficient to make the BOP an arm of the prosecution. “The court cannot find that
1 Because the Court denies Thomas’ motion on the ground that no material exists to disclose, it does not address
whether the Inspector General’s report might contain information material to his defense, nor whether it is protected
by the deliberative process privilege. See Gov’t Opp. at 12–15, 22–23.
7
whether the Inspector General’s report might contain information material to his defense, nor whether it is protected
by the deliberative process privilege. See Gov’t Opp. at 12–15, 22–23.
7
DOJ-OGR-00022103
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document