DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg
690 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
6
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
690 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant was not legally prejudiced regarding witness testimony. It outlines that the defense received notes on witness Jane more than three weeks before trial and that the court's decision to permit witness Kate to testify came almost two weeks after notes were received, providing ample time for preparation. The filing cites legal precedents to assert that the court did not err in its handling of limiting instructions and that any failure to request them was the defendant's own, not a basis for a prejudice claim.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness |
Mentioned as having recalled an incident of abuse and whose testimony is a subject of legal argument regarding limiti...
|
| Kate | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of litigation over whether she could testify, her status as a "victim", and limiting instruc...
|
| Annie | Witness |
Mentioned in the context of litigating and receiving limiting instructions for her testimony.
|
| Salmonese | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the legal citation 'United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 622 (2d Cir. 2003)'.
|
| Lebedev | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the legal citation 'See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54'.
|
| Petit | Party in a cited case |
Referenced in the legal citation 'United States v. Petit, 19 Cr. 850 (JSR), 2021 WL 673461'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the litigation, required by the court to brief on whether Kate was a 'victim'.
|
| Court | Government agency |
Mentioned as the decision-making body that permitted testimony, issued orders, and gave limiting instructions.
|
Timeline (6 events)
2021-11-06
The Court issued an order requiring the Government to brief whether Kate was a 'victim' for any legal purpose, including restitution.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2021), referring to the United States District Court for the Southern...
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses the defendant's argument that she was prejudiced by Jane's testimony and her failure to ask for a limiting instruction.
The document describes the litigation between the parties over whether Kate could testify and the subsequent limiting instructions for her testimony.
Key Quotes (1)
"rejecting a prejudice argument in part because “[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”"Source
— Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54
(Cited as legal precedent to argue that the defendant had ample notice and was not prejudiced by the timing of disclosures.)
DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,058 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 24 of 51
is all that is required. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 622 (2d Cir. 2003). And in any event, Jane recalled the incident of abuse at least as early as November 3, 2021. (See Def. Mot. at 5 n.1 (citing 3509-033 at 1)). Notes from that interview were provided to the defense on November 6, 2021—more than three weeks before trial. At the time, the parties were still litigating whether Kate could testify at all. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 417 (order dated November 6, 2021, requiring the Government to brief whether Kate was a “victim” for any legal purpose, including restitution)). The Court did not permit Kate to testify until November 19, 2021—almost two weeks after the defendant received the relevant notes. (Dkt. No. 477). And following that decision, the parties continued to litigate the limiting instructions for Kate and Annie in advance of trial. (See, e.g., 11/23/21 Tr. at 28-38).
Accordingly, the defendant had ample notice to seek a limiting instruction as to this portion of Jane’s testimony. See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 (“rejecting a prejudice argument in part because “[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”). The Court’s failure to give one sua sponte is not a prejudicial variance. The defendant is simply characterizing her failure to ask for a limiting instruction at the time of Jane’s testimony as an argument that she was prejudiced. To the contrary, the Court did not err—much less plainly so. See United States v. Petit, 19 Cr. 850 (JSR), 2021 WL 673461, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2021) (applying the plain error standard to a constructive amendment claim in a Rule 33 motion that was not made at trial).
Finally, even if the defendant had been entitled to a limiting instruction but was deprived of the opportunity to request it, she still was not prejudiced. As the Court agreed at the charge conference, although the Court gave the limiting instructions for Annie and Kate, there was no
23
DOJ-OGR-00009586
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document