DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
729 KB
Extraction Summary
12
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
729 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a Defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution. The prosecution asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the high legal standard for proving prejudice, citing case law. The Defendant's claims are based on the loss of documentary evidence (flight, financial, phone, and property records related to Epstein) and the deaths of four potential witnesses (architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham).
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Trial Witness |
Mentioned in a trial transcript citation (Trial Tr. at 354) as part of the Government's investigation.
|
| Kate | Trial Witness |
Mentioned in a trial transcript citation (Trial Tr. at 1245) as part of the Government's investigation.
|
| Carolyn | Trial Witness |
Mentioned in a trial transcript citation (Trial Tr. at 1680-84) as part of the Government's investigation.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal argument, who claims to have suffered prejudice from a delay in prosecution.
|
| Pierre-Louis | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Pierre-Louis to establish legal precedent regarding prejudice from delay.
|
| Birney | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Birney to establish legal precedent regarding prejudice from delay.
|
| Cornielle | Party in a legal case |
Cited in a case (Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752) regarding the demonstration of actual prejudice.
|
| Mays | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Mays, which was quoted in the Birney case.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his travel agent, receipt of funds from him, and his residences. His records and associates ...
|
|
| Albert Pinto | Architect |
Identified as a deceased witness who built and renovated Epstein's residences.
|
| Roger Salhi | Architect |
Identified as a deceased witness who built and renovated Epstein's residences.
|
| Sally Markham | Property Manager |
Identified as a deceased witness who was a property manager for Epstein.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the case, whose investigation is described as 'relatively recent'.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears as a document identifier (Bates number) at the bottom of the page, likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A trial where the Defendant is arguing she suffered prejudice due to a delay in prosecution.
The Government's investigation into the matter, which is described as 'relatively recent'.
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for the United States v. Pierre-Louis case (Southern District of New York).
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location of one of Epstein's residences.
|
|
|
Mentioned as the location of one of Epstein's residences.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a location where Epstein had a residence that was built/renovated by deceased witnesses.
|
Relationships (4)
The document states the Defendant received funds from Epstein, and that lost financial records could have provided more detail on this.
Albert Pinto was an architect who 'built and renovated Epstein’s residences'.
Roger Salhi was an architect who 'built and renovated Epstein’s residences'.
Sally Markham was a 'property manager for Epstein'.
Key Quotes (4)
"proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative."Source
— United States v. Birney
(A quote establishing the stringent standard for proving substantial prejudice from a delay in prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
Quote #1
"is commonly demonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness."Source
— Cornielle
(A quote describing how actual prejudice is typically shown in legal cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
Quote #2
"claims of mere loss of memory resulting from the passage of time have been held to be insufficient."Source
— Pierre-Louis
(A quote stating that loss of memory alone is not enough to prove prejudice from delay.)
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
Quote #3
"must ‘demonstrate how (the loss of evidence) is prejudicial’ to her."Source
— United States v. Mays (quoted in Birney)
(A quote emphasizing that the Defendant must show specifically how lost evidence caused prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,147 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 39 of 45
the Government’s investigation was relatively recent, e.g., Trial Tr. at 354 (Jane), 1245 (Kate), 1680–84 (Carolyn), suggesting that an earlier prosecution was not feasible.
Even on the first step of the inquiry, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that she suffered actual and substantial prejudice from delay. United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). Substantial prejudice is a stringent standard. The Defendant’s “proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.” United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105–06 (2d Cir. 1982). Actual prejudice “is commonly demonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness.” Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. But “claims of mere loss of memory resulting from the passage of time have been held to be insufficient.” Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. And for any evidence lost because of delay, the Defendant “must ‘demonstrate how (the loss of evidence) is prejudicial’ to her.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 106 (quoting United States v. Mays, 549 F.2d 670, 677 (9th Cir. 1977)).
The Defendant identifies two major sets of lost evidence that, she says, demonstrate actual prejudice to her defense at trial. First, she points to documentary evidence absent at trial: (1) flight records, including passenger manifests and records from Epstein’s travel agent, that may have been more detailed than the flight logs entered at trial; (2) financial documents, including bank records and credit card records, which would have revealed more about the Defendant’s receipt of funds from Epstein and could have been used to verify or disprove certain dates; (3) a complete set of the Defendant’s phone records; and (4) Epstein’s property records for both his New York and New Mexico residences. Second, the Defendant identifies four deceased witnesses: Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects that built and renovated Epstein’s residences in Florida, New York, and New Mexico; Sally Markham, a property manager for Epstein in the
39
DOJ-OGR-00010405
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document