DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
679 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
679 KB
Summary
Page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text contains legal arguments regarding the timing of appellate reviews, specifically citing precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that immediate appeals are generally not granted if post-judgment relief (like a reversal after a trial) can adequately protect the defendant's rights. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Punn | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Punn) regarding appellate review standards.
|
| Hallock | Party (Cited Case) |
Cited in legal precedent (Will v. Hallock).
|
| Hitchcock | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Hitchcock) regarding sealing documents.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp prefix 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| Mohawk Industries |
Cited in Supreme Court precedent.
|
|
| Kensington Int'l Ltd. |
Cited in Second Circuit precedent.
|
|
| Republic of Congo |
Cited in Second Circuit precedent.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited authority).
|
|
| 9th Cir. |
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (cited authority).
|
|
| U.S. Supreme Court |
Implied by 'U.S.' case citations.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a party in a cited legal case.
|
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
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Quote #2
"“[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by defendants)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,676 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page10 of 23
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).
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-00019376
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document