DOJ-OGR-00022079.jpg
712 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
712 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on April 24, 2020, is a discussion from the prosecution arguing against the defense strategy of a defendant named Thomas. The prosecution contends that Thomas's plan to argue for acquittal based on being overworked and understaffed at the MCC, with rampant falsification of records within the BOP, is not a valid legal defense. The document cites case law (United States v. Carr) to support the argument that such excuses do not negate the elements of the crime and that allowing this defense would encourage jury nullification.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant |
The subject of the motion, who is being criminally charged for making false statements and whose defense strategy is ...
|
| Carr | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 221 (2d Cir. 2005)' used as legal precedent.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MCC | government agency |
Metropolitan Correctional Center, where Thomas worked and the alleged crime occurred. Mentioned as being understaffed.
|
| BOP | government agency |
Bureau of Prisons. The document states that falsification of count slips is rampant within the BOP and the matter is ...
|
| United States | government |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the case citation 'United States v. Carr'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where Thomas allegedly committed the crime in August 2019 due to staffing shortages.
|
Relationships (1)
Thomas is the defendant in a criminal case brought by the government, which is arguing against his proposed defense strategy.
Key Quotes (3)
"staffing issues, staffing shortages, supervisory lapses and the enforcement/interpretation of BOP procedures go to the heart of his defense to the government’s criminal allegations"Source
— Thomas's motion
(Quoted from the defendant's motion to describe the basis of his defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00022079.jpg
Quote #1
"Mr. Thomas will assert that the rampant staffing shortages present at the MCC in August of 2019 led to the conduct for which Mr. Thomas is now criminally charged."Source
— Thomas's motion
(Quoted from the defendant's motion explaining his planned assertion at trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00022079.jpg
Quote #2
"it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that it had a duty to find [the defendant] guilty if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense with which he was charged"Source
— United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 221 (2d Cir. 2005)
(A holding from a cited case used to argue that Thomas's excuses are not a valid legal defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00022079.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,155 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 17 of 34
2. Discussion
Thomas’s motion makes clear that he intends for his principal defense at trial to be that—
irrespective of his guilt or innocence of the false statements charges—he should be acquitted
because the MCC was understaffed, Thomas was overworked, his supervisors did not catch his
crime in the moment, and falsification of count slips is rampant within the BOP. (See Mot. 3
(“staffing issues, staffing shortages, supervisory lapses and the enforcement/interpretation of BOP
procedures go to the heart of his defense to the government’s criminal allegations”); 9 (“Mr.
Thomas will assert that the rampant staffing shortages present at the MCC in August of 2019 led
to the conduct for which Mr. Thomas is now criminally charged.”)). Thomas has failed to meet
his burden in establishing the materiality of discovery about these topics to preparing a valid
defense because the materials he seeks do not rebut the merits of the criminal charges and instead
would be impermissibly used to encourage jury nullification.
irrespective of his guilt or innocence of the false statements charges—he should be acquitted
because the MCC was understaffed, Thomas was overworked, his supervisors did not catch his
crime in the moment, and falsification of count slips is rampant within the BOP. (See Mot. 3
(“staffing issues, staffing shortages, supervisory lapses and the enforcement/interpretation of BOP
procedures go to the heart of his defense to the government’s criminal allegations”); 9 (“Mr.
Thomas will assert that the rampant staffing shortages present at the MCC in August of 2019 led
to the conduct for which Mr. Thomas is now criminally charged.”)). Thomas has failed to meet
his burden in establishing the materiality of discovery about these topics to preparing a valid
defense because the materials he seeks do not rebut the merits of the criminal charges and instead
would be impermissibly used to encourage jury nullification.
The purported reasons for Thomas’s decision to falsify count slips—being tired,
overworked, or understaffed—are not a valid legal defense, and therefore evidence related to those
issues is not relevant. Put simply, were the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas
intentionally made materially false statements and also that did so while tired or overworked, it
would still be required to convict him. See United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 221 (2d Cir. 2005)
(holding that “it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that it had a duty to find [the
defendant] guilty if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense
with which he was charged” (internal citation omitted)).
overworked, or understaffed—are not a valid legal defense, and therefore evidence related to those
issues is not relevant. Put simply, were the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas
intentionally made materially false statements and also that did so while tired or overworked, it
would still be required to convict him. See United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 221 (2d Cir. 2005)
(holding that “it was proper for the district court to instruct the jury that it had a duty to find [the
defendant] guilty if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense
with which he was charged” (internal citation omitted)).
None of Thomas’s proffered excuses relate to proving or rebutting the elements of a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) as they do not concern whether a writing or entry was false,
whether it was material to a matter within the jurisdiction of the BOP, or whether he knowingly
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) as they do not concern whether a writing or entry was false,
whether it was material to a matter within the jurisdiction of the BOP, or whether he knowingly
12
DOJ-OGR-00022079
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document