DOJ-OGR-00005587.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed by the prosecution ('Government') arguing against the defense's desire to introduce evidence related to a past charging decision from a Florida investigation. The prosecution contends this evidence is irrelevant, cumulative, and would invite the jury to speculate, creating a 'bizarre spectacle' that distracts from the actual evidence of the current trial. The document cites case law to support its position that the jury should only consider the evidence presented in this specific case, not the prosecutorial decisions made in other jurisdictions.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Victim-4 | Victim |
Mentioned in relation to earlier statements made to the FBI.
|
| Minor Victim-4 | Minor Victim |
Mentioned in the context of cross-examination of her statements.
|
| Borrero | Defendant in a cited case |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Borrero'.
|
| special agent | Special Agent |
The defense proposes to call a special agent to testify.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI | government agency |
Victim-4 made earlier statements to the FBI.
|
| Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the case, who would be entitled to elicit inculpatory information on cross-examination.
|
| The Court | government agency |
The document argues that the Court should preclude a certain line of questioning.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2007
Evidence was evaluated by prosecutors in another jurisdiction.
another jurisdiction
prosecutors
A Florida investigation that generated evidence against the defendant.
Florida
A draft indictment was never presented to a Florida grand jury.
Florida
Relationships (2)
The document outlines a legal dispute between the defendant and the Government (prosecution) over the admissibility of evidence at trial.
Key Quotes (2)
"the point will be made and can be duly ‘hammered home’ on cross-examination"Source
— United States v. Borrero case
(Cited as a reason to exclude evidence of a charging decision, as the point can be made through other means.)
DOJ-OGR-00005587.jpg
Quote #1
"implicate[s] a variety of additional considerations"Source
— United States v. Borrero case
(Describing why using a charging decision in cross-examination is problematic.)
DOJ-OGR-00005587.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,095 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 33 of 40
Victim-4 on the substance of her earlier statements to the FBI. Whether those statements translated
into a charging decision is irrelevant, among other reasons, because the decision relied on other
factors and was based on different evidence than will be presented at this trial. (See Gov’t Mot. at
24-28). Even at best, it is cumulative of cross-examination of the substance of Minor Victim-4’s
statements. See United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 1, 2013) (excluding evidence of charging different people for the same crime because “the
point will be made and can be duly ‘hammered home’ on cross-examination” without using the
charging decision, which “implicate[s] a variety of additional considerations”).
into a charging decision is irrelevant, among other reasons, because the decision relied on other
factors and was based on different evidence than will be presented at this trial. (See Gov’t Mot. at
24-28). Even at best, it is cumulative of cross-examination of the substance of Minor Victim-4’s
statements. See United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 1, 2013) (excluding evidence of charging different people for the same crime because “the
point will be made and can be duly ‘hammered home’ on cross-examination” without using the
charging decision, which “implicate[s] a variety of additional considerations”).
In any event, introducing that charging decision would invite the jury to speculate—
falsely—that the Florida investigation generated no other inculpatory evidence against the
defendant. It would therefore open the door to testimony rebutting that speculation. For instance,
the defense proposes to call a special agent to testify that the defendant was not named in a draft
indictment that was never presented to a Florida grand jury. (Def. Opp. at 39). On cross, the
Government would be entitled to elicit inculpatory information from the Florida investigation that
it currently is not planning to offer. In combination, an examination along these lines would create
a bizarre spectacle, largely based on discussions of hearsay and prosecutorial discretion. The Court
should preclude this distracting and irrelevant line of questioning. The jury should decide this case
based on the evidence or lack of evidence presented at trial, not the evidence or lack of evidence
evaluated by prosecutors in another jurisdiction in 2007. As much as the defendant hopes to ask
the jury to evaluate the prosecutorial discretion of multiple sets of prosecutors in different
jurisdictions, it is the defendant—and only the defendant—who will be on trial.
falsely—that the Florida investigation generated no other inculpatory evidence against the
defendant. It would therefore open the door to testimony rebutting that speculation. For instance,
the defense proposes to call a special agent to testify that the defendant was not named in a draft
indictment that was never presented to a Florida grand jury. (Def. Opp. at 39). On cross, the
Government would be entitled to elicit inculpatory information from the Florida investigation that
it currently is not planning to offer. In combination, an examination along these lines would create
a bizarre spectacle, largely based on discussions of hearsay and prosecutorial discretion. The Court
should preclude this distracting and irrelevant line of questioning. The jury should decide this case
based on the evidence or lack of evidence presented at trial, not the evidence or lack of evidence
evaluated by prosecutors in another jurisdiction in 2007. As much as the defendant hopes to ask
the jury to evaluate the prosecutorial discretion of multiple sets of prosecutors in different
jurisdictions, it is the defendant—and only the defendant—who will be on trial.
32
DOJ-OGR-00005587
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document