DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
682 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
682 KB
Summary
This document is page 133 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It presents legal arguments and case law precedents regarding government misconduct, specifically the high burden required to prove 'outrageous' government conduct that would warrant dismissal of an indictment. The text argues that relief is only appropriate if the misconduct prejudiced the defense, and that suppression of evidence is the standard remedy rather than dismissal.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schmidt | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Schmidt
|
| Rahman | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Rahman
|
| Al Kassar | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Al Kassar
|
| Heyward | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Heyward
|
| Cromitie | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Cromitie
|
| Ghailani | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Ghailani
|
| DiGregorio | Legal Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. DiGregorio
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Federal Court of Appeals cited in legal precedents
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction cited)
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from footer DOJ-OGR)
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in legal citations
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Generally, to be ‘outrageous,’ the government’s involvement in a crime must involve either coercion or a violation of the defendant’s person."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
Quote #1
"The Second Circuit has “yet to identify a particular set of circumstances in which government investigative conduct was so egregious that it shocked the conscience and violated fundamental guarantees of due process.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
Quote #2
"Even where Government misconduct meets the outrageousness test, dismissal of an indictment is warranted only where the Government’s behavior “resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant’s] defense or legal representation.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
Quote #3
"Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is suppression of the evidence obtained as the result of the Government’s outrageous misconduct."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003067.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,978 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 133 of 239
investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997).
United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Generally, to be ‘outrageous,’ the government’s involvement in a crime must involve either coercion or a violation of the defendant’s person. It does not suffice to show that the government created the opportunity for the offense, even if the government’s ploy is elaborate and the engagement with the defendant is extensive.” (internal citations omitted)). The Second Circuit has “yet to identify a particular set of circumstances in which government investigative conduct was so egregious that it shocked the conscience and violated fundamental guarantees of due process.” United States v. Heyward, No. 10 Cr. 84 (LTS), 2010 WL 4484642, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010); see also United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 218 (2d Cir. 2019).
There also “must be a causal connection between the violation and the deprivation of the defendant’s life or liberty threatened by the prosecution.” United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “That is to say, relief against the government in a criminal case is appropriate if, and only if, a conviction otherwise would be a product of the government misconduct that violated the Due Process Clause.” Id.
Even where Government misconduct meets the outrageousness test, dismissal of an indictment is warranted only where the Government’s behavior “resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant’s] defense or legal representation.” United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is suppression of the evidence obtained as the result of the Government’s outrageous misconduct. Id.
106
DOJ-OGR-00003067
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document