DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg

758 KB

Extraction Summary

6
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing / court order (page 2 of 11)
File Size: 758 KB
Summary

This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.

People (6)

Name Role Context
Tagliaferro Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Tagliaferro regarding Rule 17(c).
Ulbricht Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Ulbricht regarding the purpose of subpoenas.
Chambers Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Chambers regarding abrogation on other grounds.
Purin Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Purin regarding subpoenas not being for discovery.
Cherry Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Cherry regarding broad pretrial subpoenas.
Gross Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Gross regarding obtaining leads.

Organizations (6)

Name Type Context
Supreme Court
Referenced as explaining the intent of Rule 16 and Rule 17.
Bowman Dairy Co.
Party in the cited case Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States.
United States
Party in multiple cited cases.
S.D.N.Y.
Southern District of New York, cited in case references.
2d Cir.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case references.
DOJ
Indicated in footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.

Locations (1)

Location Context
Southern District of New York

Key Quotes (4)

"“[i]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
Quote #1
"“A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
Quote #2
"Rule 17(c) cannot be used “to obtain leads as to the existence of additional documentary evidence or to seek information relating to the defendant’s case.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
Quote #3
"The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of” specific materials that the parties intend to offer into evidence."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,267 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 11
Page 2
Those obligations, and not Rule 17 subpoenas, provide the avenue through which defendants in criminal cases obtain discovery. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[i]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) (“A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery.”). Unlike the rules of civil procedure—permitting the issuance of subpoenas to seek production of documents or materials which, although themselves not admissible, may lead to admissible evidence—the criminal rules do not authorize the issuance of such broad pretrial subpoenas under Rule 17. See United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); United States v. Gross, 24 F.R.D. 138, 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) (Rule 17(c) cannot be used “to obtain leads as to the existence of additional documentary evidence or to seek information relating to the defendant’s case. This type of discovery, permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has not been authorized for criminal trials.”).
The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of” specific materials that the parties intend to offer into evidence. See United States v. Tagliaferro, No. 19 Cr. 472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (citing Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 220 (1951)); see also United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that the rule “allows parties to subpoena documents and objects to be introduced at criminal trials”), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Chambers, 751 F. App’x 44, 46 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has explained that, to require production of materials pursuant to Rule 17(c), the party seeking production must show that:
(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise
DOJ-OGR-00002891

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document