DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
731 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (government memorandum of law/opposition brief)
File Size:
731 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 24, 2020, involving the prosecution of prison guards (specifically defendant Thomas) related to the events of August 9-10, 2019 (Jeffrey Epstein's suicide). The Government argues against Thomas's request for BOP records regarding staffing shortages and prior instances of falsified records, asserting that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team and therefore the Government is not obligated to search BOP files under discovery rules. The text cites legal precedents (U.S. v. Bryan, U.S. v. Volpe) to support the limitation of 'government' to only those agencies participating in the specific investigation.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant |
Michael Thomas (implied by case number 1:19-cr-00830), seeking discovery records regarding BOP staffing and rounds.
|
| BOP personnel | Employees |
Mentioned regarding failure to conduct rounds/counts and falsifying records.
|
| Bryan | Legal Citation Subject |
Referenced in United States v. Bryan case law.
|
| Volpe | Legal Citation Subject |
Referenced in United States v. Volpe case law.
|
| Libby | Legal Citation Subject |
Referenced in United States v. Libby case law.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; Government argues they were not involved in strategic prosecution decisions.
|
|
| Government |
The Prosecution/Department of Justice.
|
|
| MCC |
Metropolitan Correctional Center; location of staffing shortages and missed rounds.
|
|
| Ninth Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited in legal precedent.
|
|
| IRS |
Internal Revenue Service; mentioned in the context of the Bryan case precedent.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Thomas seeks order compelling Government; Government opposes.
Government argues BOP was not involved in strategic decisions or joint investigation for discovery purposes.
Key Quotes (4)
"no BOP personnel accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
Quote #1
"Thomas has offered no reason to believe that most if not all of the records that he seeks—such as records of other instances of BOP employees failing to conduct rounds and counts—would be part of the BOP’s investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
Quote #2
"a federal prosecutor need not comb the files of every federal agency which might have documents regarding the defendant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
Quote #3
"[c]ourts have construed the term 'government' . . . narrowly to mean the prosecutors in the particular case or the governmental agencies jointly involved in the prosecution of the defendant, and not the ‘government’ in general."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,160 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 25 of 34
Government; the BOP was not involved in the strategic decisions; and no BOP personnel
accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.
accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.
Moreover, even if the BOP had conducted a joint investigation with the Government into
the events of August 9 and 10, 2019 (which they did not), Thomas has offered no reason to believe
that most if not all of the records that he seeks—such as records of other instances of BOP
employees failing to conduct rounds and counts—would be part of the BOP’s investigation. There
is simply no basis to seek an order compelling the Government to search for records in the
possession of the BOP, without any temporal limitation or factual nexus to the charged case,
regarding staffing shortages at the MCC, other instances where BOP employees failed to conduct
required rounds and counts, and disciplinary records for other BOP employees who have at other
times also allegedly falsified records.
the events of August 9 and 10, 2019 (which they did not), Thomas has offered no reason to believe
that most if not all of the records that he seeks—such as records of other instances of BOP
employees failing to conduct rounds and counts—would be part of the BOP’s investigation. There
is simply no basis to seek an order compelling the Government to search for records in the
possession of the BOP, without any temporal limitation or factual nexus to the charged case,
regarding staffing shortages at the MCC, other instances where BOP employees failed to conduct
required rounds and counts, and disciplinary records for other BOP employees who have at other
times also allegedly falsified records.
The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Bryan, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents
located in the district of prosecution since the case came out of a single, nationwide IRS
investigation. 868 F.2d 1032, 1035-37 (9th Cir. 1989). In reaching that holding, the Circuit
explained that “a federal prosecutor need not comb the files of every federal agency which might
have documents regarding the defendant” and that Rule 16’s disclosure requirements are cabined
to anything in the possession “of any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the
defendant.” Id. at 1036 (emphasis added). Similarly, in United States v. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d
204, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the court explained, in denying the defendant’s discovery motion, that
“[c]ourts have construed the term ‘government’ . . . narrowly to mean the prosecutors in the
particular case or the governmental agencies jointly involved in the prosecution of the defendant,
and not the ‘government’ in general.” And while the court in United States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp.
Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents
located in the district of prosecution since the case came out of a single, nationwide IRS
investigation. 868 F.2d 1032, 1035-37 (9th Cir. 1989). In reaching that holding, the Circuit
explained that “a federal prosecutor need not comb the files of every federal agency which might
have documents regarding the defendant” and that Rule 16’s disclosure requirements are cabined
to anything in the possession “of any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the
defendant.” Id. at 1036 (emphasis added). Similarly, in United States v. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d
204, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the court explained, in denying the defendant’s discovery motion, that
“[c]ourts have construed the term ‘government’ . . . narrowly to mean the prosecutors in the
particular case or the governmental agencies jointly involved in the prosecution of the defendant,
and not the ‘government’ in general.” And while the court in United States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp.
20
DOJ-OGR-00022087
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document