DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
679 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
679 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020. It argues against the immediate appeal of a district court's pretrial decision, asserting that any potential harm to the defendant, Punn, can be adequately remedied through the standard appellate process after a final judgment. The text cites several legal precedents, including Mohawk Indus. and United States v. Hitchcock, to support the principle that post-conviction review is sufficient to protect a defendant's rights, even in cases involving purportedly ill-gotten evidence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Punn |
Mentioned as a party in a legal case (Punn, 737 F.3d at 5 and Punn, 737 F.3d at 14), whose claim and arguments are be...
|
|
| Will |
Party in the cited case Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345.
|
|
| Hallock |
Party in the cited case Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345.
|
|
| Hitchcock |
Party in the cited case United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mohawk Indus. | company |
Cited in a legal case (Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107).
|
| Kensington Int’l Ltd. | company |
Party in the cited case Kensington Int’l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the cited case United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236.
|
| 2d Cir. | court |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in relation to a 2006 case.
|
| 9th Cir. | court |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, cited in relation to a 1993 case.
|
| district court | court |
Mentioned multiple times as the lower court whose pretrial decisions and judgments are being discussed.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00019353', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Party in the cited case Kensington Int’l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238.
|
Relationships (4)
Cited in the case name 'United States v. Hitchcock'.
Cited in the case name 'Kensington Int’l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo'.
The document discusses Punn's claims and arguments being abridged by the district court's pretrial decision.
Key Quotes (3)
"Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the entry of final judgment ‘would imperil a substantial public interest’ or ‘some particular value of a high order.’"Source
— Mohawk Indus.
(Quoted from the Mohawk Indus. case to establish the standard for allowing an appeal before a final judgment.)
DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
Quote #1
"Punn’s claim can be adequately vindicated upon appeal from a final judgment. . . . [I]f Punn’s arguments continue to fail before the district court, purportedly ill-gotten evidence or its fruits are admitted at his trial, and conviction results, appellate review will be available at that point[,] . . . [and the Court] may order a new trial without the use of the ill-gotten evidence, or whatever additional remedies are necessary to ensure that Punn’s legitimate interests are fully preserved."Source
— Punn, 737 F.3d at 14
(Quoted from a previous ruling in Punn's case to argue that post-judgment appeal is a sufficient remedy.)
DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
Quote #2
"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]"Source
— United States v. Hitchcock
(Quoted to support the argument that a district court's refusal to seal documents is not immediately appealable because a later reversal can protect the defendant's interests.)
DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,676 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page11 of 24
imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final district court judgment is not sufficient.” Punn, 737 F.3d at 5 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107). “Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the entry of final judgment ‘would imperil a substantial public interest’ or ‘some particular value of a high order.’” Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107 (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 352-53 (2006)); see also Kensington Int’l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2006). In a criminal case, the availability of post-judgment relief through reversal or vacatur of conviction, if warranted, will generally be sufficient to protect whatever right a defendant claims was abridged by the district court’s pretrial decision. See, e.g., Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (“Punn’s claim can be adequately vindicated upon appeal from a final judgment. . . . [I]f Punn’s arguments continue to fail before the district court, purportedly ill-gotten evidence or its fruits are admitted at his trial, and conviction results, appellate review will be available at that point[,] . . . [and the Court] may order a new trial without the use of the ill-gotten evidence, or whatever additional remedies are necessary to ensure that Punn’s legitimate interests are fully preserved.”); United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court’s refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because “[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by defendants).
10
DOJ-OGR-00019353
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document