DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
674 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
674 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pierre-Louis | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5' as a legal precedent.
|
| Lovasco | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 (1977)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Dowling | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Youngblood | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Cornielle | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752' as a legal precedent.
|
| Marion | Party in a cited legal case |
Quoted in the citation for Cornielle: '(quoting Marion, 404 U.S. at 324)'.
|
| Alameh | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)' as a legal precedent.
|
| Delacruz | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)' as a legal precedent.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
Referred to as the prosecuting party in the legal argument, likely the U.S. Government.
|
| Supreme Court | Court |
Cited for its rulings in Lovasco, Dowling, and Youngblood cases.
|
| The Second Circuit | Court |
Cited for its clear holding on the requirements for dismissing an indictment due to delay.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | Court |
Mentioned in the citation for the Delacruz case, referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
| DOJ | Government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00009607', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implicitly the location of the legal system being discussed, and explicitly mentioned in case names like 'United Stat...
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case name 'Arizona v. Youngblood'.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a case citation, referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal argument by one party (presumably the Government) against the other (the Defendant) regarding a motion to dismiss an indictment.
Key Quotes (6)
"Because Defendant failed to show prejudice, the Court need not even address the second prong[.]"Source
— Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5
(Quoted to support the argument that the reason for delay is only considered after prejudice is established.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #1
"defined the category of infractions that violate ‘fundamental fairness’ very narrowly,"Source
— Supreme Court (in Dowling v. United States)
(Quoted to show the high standard for proving a due process violation based on delay.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #2
"stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part of the Government when the claim is based on loss of evidence attributable to the Government,"Source
— Supreme Court (in Arizona v. Youngblood)
(Quoted to emphasize the relevance of the Government's intent (good or bad faith).)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #3
"intentional device to gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused"Source
— Marion, 404 U.S. at 324 (quoted in Cornielle)
(Used to define the type of delay that is legally problematic.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #4
"To show unjustifiable conduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the government has intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage."Source
— United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)
(Quoted to state the requirement for a defendant to prove intentional delay for tactical gain.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #5
"[T]he defendant’s] motion to dismiss would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that he has not"Source
— United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
(Quoted as another precedent supporting the denial of a motion to dismiss.)
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,955 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 45 of 51
B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish that the Government Delayed the Indictment for an Improper Purpose
3. Applicable Law
If, and only if, a defendant has established significant, actual prejudice does the inquiry turn to the reason for the delay. See, e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (“Because Defendant failed to show prejudice, the Court need not even address the second prong[.]”). The reason for delay violates due process only if it is so extreme that it departs from fundamental notions of “fair play.” United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 (1977). The Supreme Court has “defined the category of infractions that violate ‘fundamental fairness’ very narrowly,” Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990), and the Supreme Court has “stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part of the Government when the claim is based on loss of evidence attributable to the Government,” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988).
The Second Circuit has clearly held that a defendant seeking the dismissal of an indictment filed within the statute of limitations must establish that the Government acted intentionally, deliberately, or with some strategy, and that the Government used that delay to gain a tactical advantage over the defendant. See, e.g., Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (delay must be an “intentional device to gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused” (quoting Marion, 404 U.S. at 324)); see also United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) (“To show unjustifiable conduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the government has intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage.”); United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“[T]he defendant’s] motion to dismiss would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that he has not
44
DOJ-OGR-00009607
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document