DOJ-OGR-00005592.jpg
633 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
633 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a motion by the Government in a criminal case. The Government argues that the Court should prevent the defense from introducing certain evidence and arguments, such as the Minor Victims' consent or a separate Florida investigation, deeming them irrelevant and prejudicial. The Government requests that the defense be required to provide advance notice before raising these issues so their admissibility can be litigated outside the jury's presence.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| defendant | defendant |
The subject of the legal motion, whose knowledge, other acts, statements, and arguments are being discussed in terms ...
|
| Minor Victims | victim |
Mentioned in the context of the defense's desire to elicit information about their alleged voluntary acts and consent.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, arguing to preclude certain evidence and defense arguments.
|
| Court | judicial body |
The presiding judicial body that will evaluate and rule on the admissibility of evidence and arguments.
|
| Circuit | judicial body |
Referenced in the context of 'the law of the Circuit', indicating a U.S. Court of Appeals whose precedents are binding.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where the Government is arguing motions in limine to preclude certain defense theories and evidence before the jury.
A Florida investigation is mentioned as an example of an irrelevant matter the defense might try to introduce to the jury.
Florida
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of an investigation that the Government considers an irrelevant matter the defense might tr...
|
Relationships (1)
The document details the Government's (prosecution) arguments against the legal strategies of the defendant's defense team in a criminal case.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,757 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 38 of 40
The defense also argues that they should be permitted to elicit information that the Minor Victims engaged in voluntary acts, because that may go to the defendant's knowledge. The Government agrees that, if the defense asks questions along those lines, the Court will need to evaluate it on a question-by-question basis. But questions that are relevant to consent but not the defendant's mens rea, and any argument to the jury about the Minor Victims' consent, is irrelevant and should be precluded.
H. The Court Should Be Wary of the Defense Refusal to Address the Government's Motions
The defendant has largely refused to respond to the Government's motion to preclude evidence of the defendant's other acts, offering the defendant's own statements, arguments sounding in nullification, [REDACTED]. (Def. Opp. at 49-57). The Court should accordingly preclude the defendant from opening on these subjects or attempting to elicit evidence along these lines unless and until she explains to the Court how this evidence could possibly be admissible.
As explained above and in the Government's motion, however, there is significant risk that the defense theories will contravene the Federal Rules of Evidence and the law of the Circuit to put irrelevant matters, such as the Florida investigation, before the jury. The Court should not permit the defense to open on these points without first providing notice so they can be litigated.
In particular, the Government does not believe there is a good-faith basis to argue that [REDACTED]. The Court should allow these issues to be litigated in advance, and not at sidebar after the jury has already heard the [REDACTED].
37
DOJ-OGR-00005592
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document