DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
800 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
5
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
800 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues against the severance of counts or defendants in a criminal case by citing numerous legal precedents. The text establishes that defendants have a 'heavy burden' to show 'substantial prejudice' to justify separate trials, and that courts generally favor joint trials for efficiency, leaving the decision to the district court's discretion.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Butler | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751.
|
| Lynch, J. | Judge |
Cited as the judge in the United States v. Butler case.
|
| Sampson | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004).
|
| Werner | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned as being quoted in the United States v. Sampson case.
|
| Amato | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir. 1994).
|
| Pizarro | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236.
|
| Zafiro | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).
|
| Page | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote citation Page, 657 F.3d at 129.
|
| Gracesqui | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote citation United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Appears as a party in multiple case citations, such as United States v. Butler and Zafiro v. United States.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding its construction of Rule 14(a) in the Zafiro case.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00003101'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the court district for the United States v. Butler case and the United States v. Gracesqui case.
|
Relationships (5)
Adversarial parties in the legal case United States v. Butler.
Adversarial parties in the legal case United States v. Sampson.
Adversarial parties in the legal case United States v. Amato.
Adversarial parties in the legal case Zafiro v. United States.
Adversarial parties in the legal case United States v. Gracesqui.
Key Quotes (5)
"[c]ourts have repeatedly recognized the appropriateness of trying perjury or obstruction charges together with the underlying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime."Source
— United States v. Butler
(A quote from a court decision establishing the principle of joining perjury charges with underlying crimes.)
DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
Quote #1
"the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice."Source
— United States v. Sampson
(A quote establishing the high burden a defendant must meet to prevail on a Rule 14 motion for severance.)
DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
Quote #2
"the principles that guide the district court’s consideration of a motion for severance usually counsel denial,"Source
— Pizarro
(A quote indicating that motions for severance are generally denied.)
DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
Quote #3
"only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence,"Source
— Zafiro v. United States
(A quote defining the specific conditions under which severance should be granted.)
DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
Quote #4
"Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court’s sound discretion."Source
— Zafiro v. United States
(A quote clarifying that even with prejudice, severance is not mandatory and is at the court's discretion.)
DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,441 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 167 of 239
in a bankruptcy proceeding). Similarly, “[c]ourts have repeatedly recognized the appropriateness of trying perjury or obstruction charges together with the underlying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime.” United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)).
In the event that properly joined counts “appear[] to prejudice a defendant or the government,” Rule 14(a) permits a court to “order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). “[I]n order to prevail” on a Rule 14 motion, “the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice.” United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this “heavy burden” because Rule 8(a) already strikes a “balance” between “considerations of economy and speed” and “possible unfairness” to the defendant. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, “the principles that guide the district court’s consideration of a motion for severance usually counsel denial,” Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at *5 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), and severance should be granted “only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence,” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).52 But “Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court’s sound discretion.” Id. at 538–39. “[L]ess drastic measures . . . such as limiting instructions,
In the event that properly joined counts “appear[] to prejudice a defendant or the government,” Rule 14(a) permits a court to “order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). “[I]n order to prevail” on a Rule 14 motion, “the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice.” United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this “heavy burden” because Rule 8(a) already strikes a “balance” between “considerations of economy and speed” and “possible unfairness” to the defendant. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, “the principles that guide the district court’s consideration of a motion for severance usually counsel denial,” Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at *5 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), and severance should be granted “only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence,” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).52 But “Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court’s sound discretion.” Id. at 538–39. “[L]ess drastic measures . . . such as limiting instructions,
52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court’s construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015), aff’d, 730 F. App’x 25 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Page for the proposition that Zafiro applies both to motions to sever counts and motions to sever defendants).
140
DOJ-OGR-00003101
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document