DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
716 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government response/memorandum)
File Size:
716 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Document 35, filed 04/24/20) in the case against Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein case). The prosecution argues that Thomas is not entitled to draft OIG reports under Rule 16 or Brady obligations. Furthermore, the text argues Thomas has failed to meet the burden of proof required to demand discovery to support a 'selective prosecution' claim, specifically failing to prove discriminatory intent or effect regarding his charges relative to rampant conduct within the Bureau of Prisons.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant |
Subject of the legal arguments; seeking discovery regarding 'selective prosecution' and statistics on BOP conduct. (L...
|
| Lewis | Cited Case Defendant |
referenced in case citation United States v. Lewis.
|
| Armstrong | Cited Case Defendant |
referenced in case citation Armstrong, 517 U.S. regarding selective-prosecution claims.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ-OIG |
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General; attorneys preparing a report.
|
|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; Thomas alleges certain conduct was 'rampant' throughout this organization.
|
|
| 4th Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (cited in caselaw).
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case number header Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Key Quotes (4)
"Thomas has not cited a single authority requiring the production of a draft, unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
Quote #1
"Thomas seeks 'information and statistics that show the conduct in which the defendant is being charged with a crime were . . . rampant throughout the BOP'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
Quote #2
"Indeed, Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or discriminatory purpose."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
Quote #3
"nothing contained in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,125 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 29 of 34
discovered any potential Brady material. As such, given that the prosecution has already produced
in discovery all of the materials it provided to the DOJ-OIG attorneys preparing the Report, the
underlying materials for the Report would be merely cumulative of information in the defendants’
possession. Any analysis of those materials by the attorneys preparing the Inspector General’s
Report is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 and cannot constitute Brady material. See
United States v. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting generally that “nothing contained
in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable”).
in discovery all of the materials it provided to the DOJ-OIG attorneys preparing the Report, the
underlying materials for the Report would be merely cumulative of information in the defendants’
possession. Any analysis of those materials by the attorneys preparing the Inspector General’s
Report is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 and cannot constitute Brady material. See
United States v. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting generally that “nothing contained
in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable”).
At bottom, Thomas has not cited a single authority requiring the production of a draft,
unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product, and such production is not
required by Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, or any other disclosure obligation.
unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product, and such production is not
required by Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, or any other disclosure obligation.
E. Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material
in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim
in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim
Thomas seeks “information and statistics that show the conduct in which the defendant is
being charged with a crime were . . . rampant throughout the BOP” and that the application of
criminal laws to him is “possibl[y] discriminatory.” (Mot. 7.) This request, which is effectively a
demand for discovery in furtherance of a selective prosecution claim, should be denied not only
for the reasons set forth in Section II.B, but also because Thomas has not made the requisite
showing that is necessary to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim. Indeed, Thomas
has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or
discriminatory purpose.
being charged with a crime were . . . rampant throughout the BOP” and that the application of
criminal laws to him is “possibl[y] discriminatory.” (Mot. 7.) This request, which is effectively a
demand for discovery in furtherance of a selective prosecution claim, should be denied not only
for the reasons set forth in Section II.B, but also because Thomas has not made the requisite
showing that is necessary to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim. Indeed, Thomas
has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or
discriminatory purpose.
1. Applicable Law
“A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself,
but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by
the Constitution.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The standard to prove this defense is “a demanding
24
but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by
the Constitution.” Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The standard to prove this defense is “a demanding
24
DOJ-OGR-00022091
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document