DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
694 KB
Extraction Summary
11
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
694 KB
Summary
This is the concluding page of a legal document filed on April 24, 2020, by the office of United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman. The document argues that the defendant Thomas's motion to compel discovery for a selective prosecution defense should be denied because the defendant failed to meet the required 'rigorous standard'. The filing cites several legal precedents to support the argument that courts routinely prevent defendants from questioning the government's motives for prosecution at trial.
People (11)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant (implied) |
Mentioned in the context of 'Thomas’s requests for discovery' on a selective prosecution defense.
|
| Armstrong | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited as 'Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464' to support the denial of the discovery request.
|
| GEOFFREY S. BERMAN | United States Attorney |
Listed as the United States Attorney submitting the document.
|
| Rebekah Donaleski | Assistant United States Attorney |
Signed the document on behalf of the United States Attorney.
|
| Jessica Lonergan | Assistant United States Attorney |
Listed as one of the Assistant United States Attorneys on the document.
|
| Nicolas Roos | Assistant United States Attorney |
Listed as one of the Assistant United States Attorneys on the document.
|
| Regan | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082' regarding a court's decision to prevent a defendant from presenting certain ev...
|
| Raniere | Defendant in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Raniere' as an example of precluding argument on the propriety of prosecution.
|
| Stewart | Defendant in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Stewart' regarding a motion to preclude a defendant from questioning the Government's moti...
|
| Larkin | Defendant in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Larkin' where a defendant was precluded from presenting evidence on the government's motiv...
|
| Starks | Defendant in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Starks' for a similar legal point.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Attorney | government agency |
The office of Geoffrey S. Berman, submitting the legal document.
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in relation to the propriety of its prosecution and its motives in investigating and indicting.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-04-24
A legal document was filed arguing for the denial of a defendant's motion to compel discovery.
New York, New York
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the document was dated.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Stewart.
|
|
|
District of Nevada, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Larkin.
|
|
|
Northern District of Mississippi, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Starks.
|
Relationships (4)
Rebekah Donaleski, an Assistant United States Attorney, signed the document on behalf of Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney.
Jessica Lonergan is listed as an Assistant United States Attorney under Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney.
Nicolas Roos is listed as an Assistant United States Attorney under Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney.
The document is a filing by the U.S. Government (prosecution) arguing against a motion made by the defendant, Thomas.
Key Quotes (4)
"rigorous standard"Source
— Unknown (quoted term)
(Used to describe the requirement to obtain discovery on a selective prosecution defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
Quote #1
"[W]e agree with the district court’s decision to resolve for itself whether the government’s conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject."Source
— Court in Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082
(Quoted as legal precedent to support precluding defendants from raising certain arguments at trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
Quote #2
"presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the jury to question the Government’s motives in investigating and indicting"Source
— Court in United States v. Stewart
(Quoted from a case where a motion was granted to preclude a defendant from presenting such arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
Quote #3
"Defendant will be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government’s motive for prosecution in the instant case as such evidence is not relevant."Source
— Court in United States v. Larkin
(Quoted as legal precedent for precluding evidence about the government's motive for prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,003 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 34 of 34
Having failed to meet the “rigorous standard” required to obtain discovery on a selective
prosecution defense, Thomas’s requests for discovery of any materials related to other incidents
in which officers were not prosecuted for falsifying count slips should be denied. Armstrong, 517
U.S. at 464.
prosecution defense, Thomas’s requests for discovery of any materials related to other incidents
in which officers were not prosecuted for falsifying count slips should be denied. Armstrong, 517
U.S. at 464.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to compel should be denied.
Dated: New York, New York
April 24, 2020
April 24, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
United States Attorney
United States Attorney
By: s/
Rebekah Donaleski
Jessica Lonergan
Nicolas Roos
Assistant United States Attorneys
Rebekah Donaleski
Jessica Lonergan
Nicolas Roos
Assistant United States Attorneys
from a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues
in a criminal trial”). Accordingly, courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising
these arguments at trial. See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082 (“[W]e agree with the district court’s
decision to resolve for itself whether the government’s conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan
from presenting evidence on that subject.”); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt.
622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government’s prosecution); United States v.
Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting
motion to preclude the defendant from “presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the
jury to question the Government’s motives in investigating and indicting” the defendant); United
States v. Larkin, No. 12-CR-319, 2017 WL 928915, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017) (“Defendant will
be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government’s motive for prosecution in the
instant case as such evidence is not relevant.”); United States v. Starks, No. 10-CR-0160, 2012
WL 12878587, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 20, 2012) (same).
reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues
in a criminal trial”). Accordingly, courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising
these arguments at trial. See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082 (“[W]e agree with the district court’s
decision to resolve for itself whether the government’s conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan
from presenting evidence on that subject.”); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt.
622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government’s prosecution); United States v.
Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting
motion to preclude the defendant from “presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the
jury to question the Government’s motives in investigating and indicting” the defendant); United
States v. Larkin, No. 12-CR-319, 2017 WL 928915, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017) (“Defendant will
be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government’s motive for prosecution in the
instant case as such evidence is not relevant.”); United States v. Starks, No. 10-CR-0160, 2012
WL 12878587, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 20, 2012) (same).
29
DOJ-OGR-00022096
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document