DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
709 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
709 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the unavailability of certain witnesses (Pinto, Salhi, Markham, and Fontanilla). The author cites multiple legal precedents, including States v. Long and United States v. Scala, to assert that the defendant's claims are speculative and lack the definite proof of actual prejudice required by law to dismiss an indictment or vacate a conviction. The document concludes that the defense's unsworn assertions about what these witnesses might have testified to are insufficient legal grounds for their motion.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Long | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case States v. Long.
|
| Birney |
Mentioned in the citation to the case Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06.
|
|
| Valona | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Valona.
|
| Spears |
Mentioned in the citation to the case Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085.
|
|
| Scala | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Scala.
|
| Pinto | Potential witness |
Mentioned as one of the individuals the defendant claims would have testified favorably.
|
| Salhi | Potential witness |
Mentioned as one of the individuals the defendant claims would have testified favorably.
|
| Markham | Potential witness |
Mentioned as one of the individuals the defendant claims would have testified favorably.
|
| Fontanilla | Potential witness |
Mentioned as one of the individuals the defendant claims would have testified favorably.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government |
Party in the legal cases United States v. Valona and United States v. Scala.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | Judiciary |
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which decided the Long and Scala cases.
|
| 7th Cir. | Judiciary |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which decided the Valona case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1987
The case of United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, was decided by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
7th Cir.
2005
The case of United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, was decided in the Southern District of New York.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Southern District of New York, where the cases of Long (1988) and Scala (2005) were heard.
|
Relationships (4)
The defendant contends that Pinto would have provided favorable testimony.
The defendant contends that Salhi would have provided favorable testimony.
The defendant contends that Markham would have provided favorable testimony.
The defendant contends that Fontanilla would have provided favorable testimony.
Key Quotes (5)
"proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative."Source
— Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06
(Cited to establish the legal standard for showing prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
Quote #1
"perceived prejudice is speculative"Source
— Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657
(Quoted from a finding where there was “no way of knowing what [the unavailable witness’s] testimony would have been”.)
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
Quote #2
"Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay."Source
— Unnamed court (cited from Dkt. No. 207 at 17)
(Used to argue against the defendant's claims regarding deceased witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
Quote #3
"Counsel’s unsworn assertions as to vague generalities” that witnesses, “if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the defendant’s] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced."Source
— United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400
(Cited to show that unsworn and vague assertions about potential testimony are insufficient to prove prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
Quote #4
"there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witnesses] would have testified, much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual prejudice."Source
— United States v. Scala, Id. at 400
(Quoted to emphasize the lack of specific evidence regarding the testimony of deceased witnesses in the defendant's case.)
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
Quote #5
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 39 of 51
States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such a
showing. Her abstract assertions simply do not rise to that level, and the law is clear that “proof
of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697
F. Supp. at 657 (finding that “perceived prejudice is speculative” where there was “no way of
knowing what [the unavailable witness’s] testimony would have been”); United States v. Valona,
834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis must consider whether the
missing witness “would have withstood cross-examination,” whether the jury would have found
him a “credible witness,” and whether the testimony, when compared to other trial evidence
“would affect the trial outcome”); Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085. “Courts have generally found that
vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify
dismissing an indictment for delay.” (Dkt. No. 207 at 17); see also United States v. Scala, 388 F.
Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Counsel’s unsworn assertions as to vague generalities”
that witnesses, “if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the
defendant’s] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced.”). Here,
“there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witnesses] would have testified,
much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual
prejudice.” Id. at 400. The defense’s unsworn assertions about what “the defense believes” these
witnesses “could have established” or “could have testified” to do not justify dismissing the
Indictment or vacating the defendant’s conviction. (Def. Mot. at 29-30).
showing. Her abstract assertions simply do not rise to that level, and the law is clear that “proof
of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697
F. Supp. at 657 (finding that “perceived prejudice is speculative” where there was “no way of
knowing what [the unavailable witness’s] testimony would have been”); United States v. Valona,
834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis must consider whether the
missing witness “would have withstood cross-examination,” whether the jury would have found
him a “credible witness,” and whether the testimony, when compared to other trial evidence
“would affect the trial outcome”); Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085. “Courts have generally found that
vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify
dismissing an indictment for delay.” (Dkt. No. 207 at 17); see also United States v. Scala, 388 F.
Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Counsel’s unsworn assertions as to vague generalities”
that witnesses, “if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the
defendant’s] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced.”). Here,
“there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witnesses] would have testified,
much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual
prejudice.” Id. at 400. The defense’s unsworn assertions about what “the defense believes” these
witnesses “could have established” or “could have testified” to do not justify dismissing the
Indictment or vacating the defendant’s conviction. (Def. Mot. at 29-30).
Second, even assuming that Pinto, Salhi, Markham, and Fontanilla would have testified as
the defendant contends, such testimony would have no bearing on whether the defendant did, in
the defendant contends, such testimony would have no bearing on whether the defendant did, in
38
DOJ-OGR-00009601
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document