DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg
650 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
7
Organizations
3
Locations
5
Events
5
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
650 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court transcript or motion, dated December 17, 2021. The speaker argues against a defense strategy that challenges the thoroughness of a government investigation, citing multiple legal precedents (e.g., Watson, Gray v. Ercole, United States v. Birbal) to support the principle that the government's choice of investigative techniques is generally irrelevant to the defendant's guilt. The argument distinguishes these cases from another, Bowen v. Maynard, where evidence of an alternative suspect was deemed material.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Watson | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'Watson, 640 F.3d, 511-12'.
|
| Gray | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'Gray v. Ercole'.
|
| Ercole | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'Gray v. Ercole'.
|
| Birbal | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Birbal'.
|
| Duncan | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Duncan'.
|
| Aleynikov | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States V. Aleynikov'.
|
| Bowen | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'Bowen v. Maynard'.
|
| Maynard | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'Bowen v. Maynard'.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as the court that affirmed the decision in United States v. Birbal.
|
| District of the Vermont | government agency |
The court where the case United States v. Birbal was heard.
|
| E.D.N.Y | government agency |
Eastern District of New York, the court associated with the 'Gray v. Ercole' citation.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Southern District of New York, the court associated with the 'United States v. Duncan' and 'United States V. Aleyniko...
|
| 10th Circuit | government agency |
The court that held that Brady evidence was material in 'Bowen v. Maynard'.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the document.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cited cases 'United States v. Birbal', 'United States v. Duncan', and 'United States V. Aleynikov'.
|
Timeline (5 events)
1996
Legal case United States v. Birbal, 92 CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 is cited.
District of the Vermont
2011
Legal case United States V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 is cited.
S.D.N.Y.
2019
Legal case United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR 289, 2019 WL 2210663 is cited.
S.D.N.Y.
Relationships (5)
Parties in the cited case 'United States v. Birbal'.
Parties in the cited case 'United States v. Duncan'.
Parties in the cited case 'United States V. Aleynikov'.
Key Quotes (2)
"common method of undermining a prosecution"Source
— Other courts in this Circuit
(Describing challenges to the thoroughness of an investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg
Quote #1
"The length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to"Source
— Unnamed speaker quoting a legal principle
(Quoted to support the argument that the government's failure to use certain investigative techniques does not prove a defendant's innocence.)
DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,732 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 24 19
LB1TMAX1
LB1TMAX1
1 the other individual. Watson, 640 F.3d, 511-12.
2 Other courts in this Circuit have described challenges
3 to the thoroughness of the investigation as a "common method of
4 undermining a prosecution" by, for example, cross-examining
5 officers on which leads they followed and which they did not.
6 See, for example, Gray v. Ercole -- I don't have that full
7 quote -- 2011 WL 5082868 (E.D.N.Y 2008). Or defense counsel
8 may, on cross, examine investigating officers if they
9 considered alternative suspects. United States v. Birbal, 92
10 CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 at *7, that's the District of the
11 Vermont, 1996. That was affirmed by the Second Circuit at 113
12 F.3d 1230. And I will quote here, "The length of the
13 investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact
14 that the defendant was not initially a target of the
15 investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to" the principle
16 that the government's failure to use particular investigative
17 techniques does not tend to show that the defendant is not
18 guilty. See, for example, United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR
19 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also, United States
20 V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
21 The other two cases the defense cites, neither of
22 which is binding on the Court, don't suggest anything different
23 than the law I just referred to. In Bowen v. Maynard, the 10th
24 Circuit held that Brady evidence in the government's possession
25 was material because it suggested that another likely suspect
2 Other courts in this Circuit have described challenges
3 to the thoroughness of the investigation as a "common method of
4 undermining a prosecution" by, for example, cross-examining
5 officers on which leads they followed and which they did not.
6 See, for example, Gray v. Ercole -- I don't have that full
7 quote -- 2011 WL 5082868 (E.D.N.Y 2008). Or defense counsel
8 may, on cross, examine investigating officers if they
9 considered alternative suspects. United States v. Birbal, 92
10 CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 at *7, that's the District of the
11 Vermont, 1996. That was affirmed by the Second Circuit at 113
12 F.3d 1230. And I will quote here, "The length of the
13 investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact
14 that the defendant was not initially a target of the
15 investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to" the principle
16 that the government's failure to use particular investigative
17 techniques does not tend to show that the defendant is not
18 guilty. See, for example, United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR
19 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also, United States
20 V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
21 The other two cases the defense cites, neither of
22 which is binding on the Court, don't suggest anything different
23 than the law I just referred to. In Bowen v. Maynard, the 10th
24 Circuit held that Brady evidence in the government's possession
25 was material because it suggested that another likely suspect
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008401
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document