DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
699 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Federal court filing / legal brief
File Size:
699 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 36) from June 9, 2020, associated with Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines legal standards associated with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 regarding discovery obligations, specifically defining 'materiality' of evidence and what constitutes government 'possession, custody, or control.' It relies on legal precedents such as US v. Ulbricht, US v. Abdalla, and US v. Stein to argue the scope of evidence the government must produce.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ulbricht | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Ulbricht regarding evidence materiality.
|
| Carpenter | Petitioner in cited case law |
Cited in Carpenter v. United States.
|
| Abdalla | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Abdalla regarding prima facie showing of materiality.
|
| Urena | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Urena regarding quantum of proof.
|
| Finnerty | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Finnerty regarding definition of government possession.
|
| Stein | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Stein regarding the definition of 'control' over documents.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
S.D.N.Y. (Southern District of New York) mentioned in citations.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
2d Cir. mentioned in citations.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR' and references to 'the [G]overnment'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
S.D.N.Y. mentioned in legal citations.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Evidence is material if it could be used to counter the [G]overnment’s case or to bolster a defense."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
Quote #1
"In order to compel the Government to produce certain evidence, a defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality, and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
Quote #2
"Evidence is “within the [G]overnment’s possession, custody, or control” if “(1) it has actually reviewed [the evidence], or (2) [the evidence is] in the possession, custody, or control of a government agency so closely aligned with the prosecution so as to be considered part of the prosecution team.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
Quote #3
"Control has been defined to include the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand. The term ‘control’ is broadly construed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,052 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 9
custody, or control and: (i) the item is material to preparing the defense; (ii) the [G]overnment
intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item was obtained from or belongs
to the defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). “Evidence is material if it could be used to
counter the [G]overnment’s case or to bolster a defense.” United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71,
109 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds
by Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). “In order to compel the Government to
produce certain evidence, a defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality, and must
offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.” United States
v. Abdalla, 317 F. Supp. 3d 786, 790 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “There must be some indication that the pretrial disclosure of the disputed evidence
would enable the defendant significantly to alter the quantum of proof in his favor.” United
States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks, citation,
and alterations omitted).
intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item was obtained from or belongs
to the defendant.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). “Evidence is material if it could be used to
counter the [G]overnment’s case or to bolster a defense.” United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71,
109 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds
by Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). “In order to compel the Government to
produce certain evidence, a defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality, and must
offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.” United States
v. Abdalla, 317 F. Supp. 3d 786, 790 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “There must be some indication that the pretrial disclosure of the disputed evidence
would enable the defendant significantly to alter the quantum of proof in his favor.” United
States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks, citation,
and alterations omitted).
Evidence is “within the [G]overnment’s possession, custody, or control” if “(1) it has
actually reviewed [the evidence], or (2) [the evidence is] in the possession, custody, or control of
a government agency so closely aligned with the prosecution so as to be considered part of the
prosecution team.” United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
“Legal ownership of the requested documents or things is not determinative, nor is actual
possession necessary if the party has control of the items. Control has been defined to include
the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand. The term ‘control’ is broadly
construed.” United States v. Stein, 488 F. Supp. 2d 350, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted) (collecting cases).
actually reviewed [the evidence], or (2) [the evidence is] in the possession, custody, or control of
a government agency so closely aligned with the prosecution so as to be considered part of the
prosecution team.” United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
“Legal ownership of the requested documents or things is not determinative, nor is actual
possession necessary if the party has control of the items. Control has been defined to include
the legal right to obtain the documents requested upon demand. The term ‘control’ is broadly
construed.” United States v. Stein, 488 F. Supp. 2d 350, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted) (collecting cases).
3
DOJ-OGR-00022099
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document