DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
679 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
679 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing from the prosecution ("the Government") in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should prevent the defense from discussing certain issues or offering related evidence during its opening statement and the trial, claiming such evidence is irrelevant, inadmissible, and prejudicial. The filing cites several legal precedents to support the Court's authority to limit the defense's presentation to ensure a fair trial and avoid a mistrial.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Randle | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Randle.
|
| Salovitz | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Salovitz.
|
| Ahaiwe | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Ahaiwe.
|
| Percoco | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Percoco.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government | government agency |
Referred to as "the Government," a party in the legal case making motions to preclude evidence.
|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body being asked to make rulings on evidence and opening statements.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Ahaiwe, referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The Government
→
adversarial
→
The defense
The document shows the Government filing a motion to preclude the defense from presenting certain evidence and arguments at trial.
Key Quotes (5)
"The making and timing of opening statements can be left constitutionally to the informed discretion of the trial judge."Source
— United States v. Salovitz (quoted in United States v. Randle)
(Cited to support the argument that the Court can control the content of opening statements.)
DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government’s motions to preclude defense counsel from making certain statements in its opening statement or in its questioning of witnesses is granted with the following exceptions."Source
— United States v. Ahaiwe
(Cited as precedent for granting motions to limit the defense's statements and questions.)
DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
Quote #2
"right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense."Source
— United States v. Percoco
(A quote from a defense opposition brief, establishing the defendant's right to present a defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
Quote #3
"The right is not, of course, unlimited; the defendant must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability."Source
— Percoco
(Cited to argue that the defendant's right to present a defense is not absolute and is subject to rules of evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
Quote #4
"[a] federal court may preclude a defendant from presenting a defense when the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient."Source
— Unknown (cited in Percoco)
(Used to argue that the Court can prevent the defense from presenting evidence if that evidence is legally insufficient.)
DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,956 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 25 of 40
permit this. As the Government has explained, for many of the subjects of the Government’s
motions, any evidence or argument is irrelevant, inadmissible, lacks a good faith basis, and is
highly prejudicial. The Court should preclude the defense from discussing these issues in its
opening statement or attempting to offer evidence relating to these issues at trial unless and until
the defense makes an offer of proof so that the Court can make evidentiary rulings. See United
States v. Randle, 745 F. App’x 422, 424 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (“‘The making and timing
of opening statements can be left constitutionally to the informed discretion of the trial judge.’”
(quoting United States v. Salovitz, 701 F.2d 17, 21 (2d Cir. 1983)) (alteration omitted)); United
States v. Ahaiwe, No. 20 Cr. 179 (DLC), 2021 WL 2134922, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2021) (“The
Government’s motions to preclude defense counsel from making certain statements in its opening
statement or in its questioning of witnesses is granted with the following exceptions.”). To proceed
otherwise would risk an improper defense opening statement or attempts to elicit other improper
evidence that could cause a mistrial.
motions, any evidence or argument is irrelevant, inadmissible, lacks a good faith basis, and is
highly prejudicial. The Court should preclude the defense from discussing these issues in its
opening statement or attempting to offer evidence relating to these issues at trial unless and until
the defense makes an offer of proof so that the Court can make evidentiary rulings. See United
States v. Randle, 745 F. App’x 422, 424 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (“‘The making and timing
of opening statements can be left constitutionally to the informed discretion of the trial judge.’”
(quoting United States v. Salovitz, 701 F.2d 17, 21 (2d Cir. 1983)) (alteration omitted)); United
States v. Ahaiwe, No. 20 Cr. 179 (DLC), 2021 WL 2134922, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2021) (“The
Government’s motions to preclude defense counsel from making certain statements in its opening
statement or in its questioning of witnesses is granted with the following exceptions.”). To proceed
otherwise would risk an improper defense opening statement or attempts to elicit other improper
evidence that could cause a mistrial.
A. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the
Defendant
Defendant
A defendant has a “right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense.” (Def.
Opp. at 28) (quoting United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021)). “The right is
not, of course, unlimited; the defendant must comply with established rules of procedure and
evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability.” Percoco, 13 F.4th at 177 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). For instance, “[a] federal court may preclude a defendant from
presenting a defense when the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient.”
Opp. at 28) (quoting United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021)). “The right is
not, of course, unlimited; the defendant must comply with established rules of procedure and
evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability.” Percoco, 13 F.4th at 177 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). For instance, “[a] federal court may preclude a defendant from
presenting a defense when the evidence in support of such a defense would be legally insufficient.”
24
DOJ-OGR-00005579
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document