DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
722 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
722 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing from April 24, 2020, discussing a motion by an individual named Thomas. The court denies Thomas's request for discovery related to his claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution, finding he has not met the high burden of proof required. The court dismisses Thomas's comparison to a 2005/2006 incident involving other officers, stating it is not relevant because Thomas is charged with making false statements, not with failing to conduct counts.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant/Movant |
Mentioned throughout as the individual making a claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution and seeking discover...
|
| Fares | Party in a cited case |
Cited in 'Fares, 978 F.2d at 59' for legal precedent regarding the burden of proof for discovery.
|
| Armstrong | Party in a cited case |
Cited in 'Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464' and 'Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470' for legal precedent on the requirements for di...
|
| Berrios | Party in a cited case |
Cited in 'Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211' for legal precedent regarding insufficient affidavits for discovery.
|
| Alameh | Party in a cited case |
Cited in 'Alameh, 341 F.3d at 174' for legal precedent regarding insufficient statistical analysis for discovery.
|
| Lewis | Party in a cited case |
Cited in 'United States v. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008)' for the definition of a 'similarly situated offend...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Lewis'.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document control number 'DOJ-OGR-00022093'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2005 or 2006
An incident where officers failed to conduct institutional counts or rounds, an inmate committed suicide, and one of the four officers involved was given a suspension. Thomas alleges this incident is 'almost identical' to his situation.
officers
inmate
Key Quotes (4)
"[T]he showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims."Source
— Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464
(Quoted as legal precedent to establish the high bar for granting discovery in a case.)
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
Quote #1
"Mere assertions and generalized proffers on information and belief are insufficient"Source
— Fares, 978 F.2d at 59
(Quoted to explain why certain types of evidence are not enough to meet the burden for discovery.)
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
Quote #2
"others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against [him]."Source
— Fares, 978 F.2d at 59
(Quoted to define the 'discriminatory effect' prong of a selective prosecution claim, which Thomas failed to prove.)
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
Quote #3
"A similarly situated offender is one outside the protected class who has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same circumstances but against whom the law has not been enforced."Source
— United States v. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008)
(Quoted to provide the legal definition of a 'similarly situated offender' in the context of a discriminatory prosecution claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,143 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 31 of 34
intent”); Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (same). “[T]he showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464. “Mere assertions and generalized proffers on information and belief are insufficient” to meet this burden. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59; see, e.g., Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470 (affidavits “recount[ing] hearsay and report[ing] personal conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence” are not sufficient to justify discovery); Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211 (affidavit from defendant and attorney that they “believe[d]” there was improper motive and that “hundreds” of similarly situated individuals went unprosecuted was insufficient); Alameh, 341 F.3d at 174 (defendant’s statistical analysis was insufficient to merit discovery on selective prosecution claim).
2. Discussion
Thomas is not entitled to discovery that would relate to a selective procession or “discriminatory application” claim. He has not carried his burden through a showing of any evidence that his prosecution for the charges in the Indictment is discriminatory.
As to the first required prong (discriminatory effect), Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that “others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against [him].” Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A similarly situated offender is one outside the protected class who has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same circumstances but against whom the law has not been enforced.” United States v. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008). Thomas alleges that there was an “almost identical incident in 2005 or 2006 wherein officers failed to conduct institutional counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide,” and one of the four officers involved was given a suspension. (Mot. 6). But Thomas is not charged with failing to conduct counts, he is charged with making false statements about those counts. Even assuming
26
DOJ-OGR-00022093
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document