DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
828 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
828 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a filing by the prosecution (The Government) arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that the defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution is speculative, as her assertions about diminished witness memories and lost access to her own emails, phone, and travel records from 1994-1997 lack proof of their helpfulness or materiality. The document cites legal precedents (Harrison and Dornau) to support the position that such speculative claims are insufficient grounds for dismissal.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned in reference to the standard of proof for actual prejudice in the case of Marion.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the case, which is arguing against the defendant's claims.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the document footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00003011'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The defendant is making a claim that a delay in prosecution has prejudiced her case due to the loss of access to exculpatory evidence.
defendant
The Government
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case citations for Harrison (1991) and Dornau (1973), referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details the legal arguments between the defendant and the prosecution (The Government) regarding a motion to dismiss an indictment.
Key Quotes (2)
"the passage of time does affect witnesses’ memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony"Source
— United States v. Harrison
(Cited to acknowledge that the passage of time can affect witness memory, but arguing it doesn't automatically warrant dismissal.)
DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
Quote #1
"A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate"Source
— United States v. Dornau
(Cited to support the argument that the defendant's claim of lost evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,528 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 77 of 239
to the extent the passage of time affects the memories of witnesses who testify at trial, the
defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. See United States v.
Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting that “the passage of time does affect
witnesses’ memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony” and that the
Government also faces potential harms from the passage of time).18 Accordingly, the defendant’s
bald assertions regarding diminished memories of potential witnesses are speculative and, thus,
fall short of the proof of actual prejudice required by the Supreme Court’s standard in Marion.
defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. See United States v.
Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting that “the passage of time does affect
witnesses’ memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony” and that the
Government also faces potential harms from the passage of time).18 Accordingly, the defendant’s
bald assertions regarding diminished memories of potential witnesses are speculative and, thus,
fall short of the proof of actual prejudice required by the Supreme Court’s standard in Marion.
The defendant also claims that because of the delay in the prosecution, she does not have
access to certain exculpatory documentary evidence. (Def. Mot. 7 at 12-14). Once again, this
argument is entirely speculative. The defendant hypothesizes that if she had access to certain
documentary evidence (some of which, such as travel records, has been produced in discovery),
or evidence which she herself should have access to (e.g., her own emails from 1994 to 1997, her
own phone records from 1994 to 1997, and her own travel records from 1994 to 1997), this
evidence would have helped her. She offers no proof or basis for concluding that the records
would be helpful. Even if such records were helpful, dismissal of the Indictment would be too
extreme a measure in light of the relative significance of this form of evidence to other proof in
the case. Thus, the defendant’s claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a
proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094
(S.D.N.Y. 1973) (“A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate
access to certain exculpatory documentary evidence. (Def. Mot. 7 at 12-14). Once again, this
argument is entirely speculative. The defendant hypothesizes that if she had access to certain
documentary evidence (some of which, such as travel records, has been produced in discovery),
or evidence which she herself should have access to (e.g., her own emails from 1994 to 1997, her
own phone records from 1994 to 1997, and her own travel records from 1994 to 1997), this
evidence would have helped her. She offers no proof or basis for concluding that the records
would be helpful. Even if such records were helpful, dismissal of the Indictment would be too
extreme a measure in light of the relative significance of this form of evidence to other proof in
the case. Thus, the defendant’s claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a
proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094
(S.D.N.Y. 1973) (“A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate
18 The Government notes that it faces the same potential harms from the passage of time as does
any party, including loss of witnesses through death or disappearance, diminishment of memories
over the passage of time, and loss of evidence. The Government, of course, bears the burden of
proof at trial, and as such, prosecutors have every incentive to bring cases as promptly as possible,
when memories are fresh and when it is possible to identify corroborating witnesses and records.
Any suggestion that the Government delayed bringing the instant case for over two decades for its
own benefit or a tactical advantage borders on the absurd.
any party, including loss of witnesses through death or disappearance, diminishment of memories
over the passage of time, and loss of evidence. The Government, of course, bears the burden of
proof at trial, and as such, prosecutors have every incentive to bring cases as promptly as possible,
when memories are fresh and when it is possible to identify corroborating witnesses and records.
Any suggestion that the Government delayed bringing the instant case for over two decades for its
own benefit or a tactical advantage borders on the absurd.
50
DOJ-OGR-00003011
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document