DOJ-OGR-00008390.jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing dated December 15, 2021, details the Court's rejection of the Defense's request to allow a witness to testify under a pseudonym. The Court finds the request untimely, notes that other legal tools like a letter rogatory were available to compel testimony, and distinguishes the case from precedents involving undercover officers whose safety or operational effectiveness would be compromised by revealing their identity.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brennerman | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Brennerman.
|
| Lee | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Lee.
|
| Alimehmeti | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Alimehmeti.
|
| Hernandez | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Hernandez.
|
| Schulte | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Schulte.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the legal case, opposing the Defense's request.
|
| Defense | Legal team |
A party in the legal case, making a request for witness pseudonymity.
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose decisions are cited as precedent.
|
| Court | Court |
The judicial body making the ruling described in the document.
|
| CIA | Government agency |
Mentioned in a cited case where a covert CIA officer testified under a pseudonym.
|
| United States | Government |
Named as the plaintiff in several cited legal cases (e.g., United States v. Brennerman).
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government rested its case.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a location from which testimony could be secured via a letter rogatory in a cited case.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, the court district for several cited cases.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the Government's opposition to a request made by the Defense regarding witness testimony, and the Court's ruling on the matter.
Key Quotes (1)
"secure testimony from the United Kingdom"Source
— Court (citing United States v. Brennerman)
(Describing the function of the legal mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1781 for a criminal defendant.)
DOJ-OGR-00008390.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,177 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 548 Filed 12/15/21 Page 4 of 6
breaking nature of the Defense’s request, which was made not pre-trial, as was the Government’s
request for the use of pseudonyms, but instead two days after the Government rested its case.
The Defense could and should have anticipated potential witnesses’ concerns. If the Defense
anticipated calling a witness who refuses to testify, the Defense would have the same tools at its
disposal as does the Government to compel that witness’s attendance at trial. The Defense could
have, for example, subpoenaed a witness under Rule 17. If the witness resides abroad, the
Defense could have sought a letter rogatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1781, which is a mechanism that
the Second Circuit has repeatedly emphasized. See, e.g., United States v. Brennerman, 818 F.
App’x 25, 30 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing § 1781 as a mechanism for a criminal defendant to “secure
testimony from the United Kingdom”); United States v. Lee, 723 F.3d 134, 142 n.6 (2d Cir.
2013). These mechanisms ensure that pseudonyms are not necessary to secure a reluctant
witness’s testimony and the Court therefore rejects this basis for permitting pseudonyms.
Third, the Defense argues that a pseudonym is justified for a witness that works as a plain
clothes law enforcement officer, citing in support a large body of case law in which anonymity
was granted for testifying law enforcement officers. Def. Letter at 5. But as the Government
notes, the cases relied on by the Defense uniformly involve officers that work undercover such
that revealing their true name to the public would subject them to violent retaliation by the
defendant or other individuals, or would frustrate their ability to remain undercover. E.g., United
States v. Alimehmeti, 284 F. Supp. 3d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); United States v. Hernandez, No. S1
12 CR 809 PKC, 2013 WL 3936185 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013). Even further afield, the Defense
cites in support a case in which a covert CIA officer testified under a pseudonym. United States
v. Schulte, 436 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). These cases are inapplicable to the present
request as proffered to the Court.
request for the use of pseudonyms, but instead two days after the Government rested its case.
The Defense could and should have anticipated potential witnesses’ concerns. If the Defense
anticipated calling a witness who refuses to testify, the Defense would have the same tools at its
disposal as does the Government to compel that witness’s attendance at trial. The Defense could
have, for example, subpoenaed a witness under Rule 17. If the witness resides abroad, the
Defense could have sought a letter rogatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1781, which is a mechanism that
the Second Circuit has repeatedly emphasized. See, e.g., United States v. Brennerman, 818 F.
App’x 25, 30 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing § 1781 as a mechanism for a criminal defendant to “secure
testimony from the United Kingdom”); United States v. Lee, 723 F.3d 134, 142 n.6 (2d Cir.
2013). These mechanisms ensure that pseudonyms are not necessary to secure a reluctant
witness’s testimony and the Court therefore rejects this basis for permitting pseudonyms.
Third, the Defense argues that a pseudonym is justified for a witness that works as a plain
clothes law enforcement officer, citing in support a large body of case law in which anonymity
was granted for testifying law enforcement officers. Def. Letter at 5. But as the Government
notes, the cases relied on by the Defense uniformly involve officers that work undercover such
that revealing their true name to the public would subject them to violent retaliation by the
defendant or other individuals, or would frustrate their ability to remain undercover. E.g., United
States v. Alimehmeti, 284 F. Supp. 3d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); United States v. Hernandez, No. S1
12 CR 809 PKC, 2013 WL 3936185 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013). Even further afield, the Defense
cites in support a case in which a covert CIA officer testified under a pseudonym. United States
v. Schulte, 436 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). These cases are inapplicable to the present
request as proffered to the Court.
4
DOJ-OGR-00008390
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document