DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
691 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
691 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically an argument regarding the scope of the government's discovery obligations. It cites several legal precedents (Brady, Giglio, Avellino, Kyles, Barcelo) to argue that a prosecutor's duty to disclose information is limited to materials in their possession or the possession of the 'prosecution team' (e.g., investigating officers), and does not extend to information held by separate, uninvolved government entities.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brady |
Referenced in the context of the Brady rule, which governs prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence.
|
|
| Giglio |
Referenced in the context of the Giglio rule, which extends the Brady rule to impeachment evidence.
|
|
| Avellino |
A party in the cited case United States v. Avellino, which discusses the limits of imputing knowledge to a prosecutor.
|
|
| Kyles |
A party in the cited case Kyles v. Whitley, which discusses the scope of the government's discovery obligations.
|
|
| Whitley |
A party in the cited case Kyles v. Whitley.
|
|
| Barcelo |
A party in the cited case United States v. Barcelo, which defines the 'prosecution team'.
|
|
| Yousef |
A party in the cited case United States v. Yousef, which states Brady is not a basis to compel the government to gath...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Referenced throughout as the party with discovery and disclosure obligations in a criminal case.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document (DOJ-OGR-00022083), likely a document control number from the Department of Jus...
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (1)
prosecutor
→
professional
→
police officers and federal agents
The document describes police officers and federal agents as part of the 'prosecution team' when they 'submit to the direction of the prosecutor and participate in the investigation.'
Key Quotes (5)
"[a]n individual prosecutor is presumed . . . to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office’s investigation of the case, . . . knowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor."Source
— United States v. Avellino
(Quoted to argue that a prosecutor's knowledge is limited to their own office's investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
Quote #1
"an unlimited duty on a prosecutor to inquire of other offices not working with the prosecutor’s office on the case in question would inappropriately require us to adopt a monolithic view of government’ that would ‘condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis."Source
— United States v. Avellino
(Quoted to argue against imposing a broad duty on prosecutors to seek information from other government agencies.)
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
Quote #2
"others acting on the government’s behalf in the case"Source
— Kyles v. Whitley
(Quoted to define the scope of the government's discovery and disclosure obligations, extending it beyond just the prosecutor.)
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
Quote #3
"information known to persons who are a part of the ‘prosecution team’ . . . who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case,"Source
— United States v. Barcelo
(Quoted to define the 'prosecution team' for the purpose of disclosure obligations.)
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
Quote #4
"police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the prosecutor and participate in the investigation."Source
— United States v. Barcelo
(Quoted as an example of who is included in the 'prosecution team'.)
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,030 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 21 of 34
supra) defenses, is not legally required and would impose a nearly insurmountable obligation on the Government of marshalling and reviewing information and data in the possession of an entirely separate entity.
1. Applicable Law
As described above, Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio apply to materials in the Government’s “possession.” As a general matter, while “[a]n individual prosecutor is presumed . . . to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office’s investigation of the case, . . . knowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor.” United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). The imposition of such “an unlimited duty on a prosecutor to inquire of other offices not working with the prosecutor’s office on the case in question would inappropriately require us to adopt a monolithic view of government’ that would ‘condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis.” Id. (citation & quotation marks omitted); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (Government’s discovery and disclosure obligations extend only to information in the custody of the prosecutor or “others acting on the government’s behalf in the case”). Thus, discovery and disclosure obligations only extend “information known to persons who are a part of the ‘prosecution team’ . . . who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case,” including “police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the prosecutor and participate in the investigation.” United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App’x 36, 38 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Brady is not a basis to compel the Government to gather information in the possession of third parties on behalf of the defense. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d
16
DOJ-OGR-00022083
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document