DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the Government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government argues that it has provided sufficient and timely notice to the defense regarding Rule 404(b) evidence, citing the provision of extensive materials and relevant legal precedents. The brief refutes the defense's motion to preclude evidence based on claims of inadequate notice.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, arguing against the defense's motion.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose legal precedent is cited.
|
| BHH, LLC | company |
A party in the cited case, Hart v. BHH, LLC.
|
| Vill. Green Realty, Inc. | company |
A party in the cited case, Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2015
A ruling was made in the case Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc.
2d Cir.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Southern District of New York, mentioned as the location for cited legal cases.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a brief where the Government is arguing against the defense's claims regarding the inadequacy of a legal notice.
Key Quotes (4)
"before trial,"Source
— Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C)
(Quoted to describe the timing requirement for the defense to receive notice of Rule 404(b) evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #1
"during trial . . . for good cause."Source
— Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C)
(Quoted to describe an exception to the timing requirement for notice of Rule 404(b) evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #2
"unusually early"Source
— Government
(Describing the timing of the provision of Jencks Act materials to the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #3
"Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds."Source
— Hart v. BHH, LLC
(A legal principle cited from a previous case to support the Government's argument against excluding evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005824.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,064 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 41 of 84
Government’s notice is remediated by this brief. This is ample notice of the possible Rule 404(b) evidence in this case. Indeed, the Rule only requires that the defense receive notice “before trial,” or even “during trial . . . for good cause.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C).
The defense claims, without supporting authority, that Rule 404(b) requires heightened notice that cannot be satisfied here without, essentially, a script of all of the proposed testimony at trial accompanied by detailed expositions of the Government’s case-in-chief. (Def. Mot. 2 at 4-5). But the Government has provided the defense with marked exhibits and comprehensive Jencks Act materials of the single witness subject to this motion (approximately 400 pages) “unusually early” (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353), along with a letter specifically highlighting the proffered evidence at trial. That is all that is required, and the defendant cannot leverage the notice requirements of Rule 404(b) to preclude this evidence at trial. Indeed, the “Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds.” Hart v. BHH, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 4804 (WHP), 2019 WL 1494027, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019) (citing Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, the only judge in this District to consider a similar situation concluded that the Government’s Rule 404(b) notice was sufficient in combination with the Government’s motion papers. See United States v. Chandler, No. 19 Cr. 867 (PKC), 2021 WL 1851996, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021).
The defense vaguely asserts that it cannot perform an independent investigation into the Rule 404(b) evidence due to the inadequacy of the Government’s notice. (Def. Mot. 2 at 5-6). That conclusory assertion cannot support a motion to preclude the jury from hearing evidence of the defendant’s guilt. The defense has not identified any specific way that they have been hampered
40
DOJ-OGR-00005824
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document