DOJ-OGR-00022105.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This document is the final page of a court order dated June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (related to the guards charged in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's death). Judge Analisa Torres denies defendant Thomas' motion to compel the government to disclose evidence regarding widespread falsification of count slips at the BOP, ruling that Thomas failed to meet the standard for a selective prosecution claim. The judge notes Thomas provided no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect based on race, sex, or ethnicity.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant |
Refers to Michael Thomas (prison guard); seeking discovery for selective prosecution defense regarding falsified coun...
|
| Analisa Torres | United States District Judge |
Judge issuing the order denying the motion.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
Prosecution team in the case.
|
|
| BOP |
Federal Bureau of Prisons; employer of the defendant.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Southern District of New York (implied by Judge Torres and location).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-06-09
Judge Analisa Torres denies Thomas' motion to compel discovery regarding selective prosecution.
New York, New York
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the order was signed.
|
|
|
General location referenced regarding the practice of falsifying count slips.
|
Relationships (2)
Thomas is the defendant seeking discovery; Government is the prosecution opposing it.
Key Quotes (3)
"Thomas’ motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence that the submission of false count slips was widespread and tolerated at the BOP, and for discovery related to selective prosecution, is DENIED."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022105.jpg
Quote #1
"he has not presented any evidence that those officers differed from him in any protected characteristic—for example, that they were of a different race, sex, or ethnicity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022105.jpg
Quote #2
"Thomas claims that BOP supervisors may have acquiesced in his submission of false count slips in this case"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022105.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,774 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 9 of 9
assertion that the Government, or any other agency that has operated as an arm of the
prosecution, is in possession or control of evidence that relates to the prevalence of falsifying
count slips in federal correctional facilities, or BOP leadership’s tolerance of such practices.
prosecution, is in possession or control of evidence that relates to the prevalence of falsifying
count slips in federal correctional facilities, or BOP leadership’s tolerance of such practices.
Moreover, to the extent that Thomas is seeking discovery in support of a selective
prosecution defense, he has not met the “rigorous” standard that applies for obtaining discovery
in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). “[A] defendant
who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both
discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.” United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862, 863
(2002). Though Thomas claims that BOP supervisors may have acquiesced in his submission of
false count slips in this case, and that other BOP employees have submitted false documents in
other circumstances, he has not presented any evidence that those officers differed from him in
any protected characteristic—for example, that they were of a different race, sex, or ethnicity.
See Motion at 10. Nor has Thomas put forward any evidence of a discriminatory motive for his
prosecution.
prosecution defense, he has not met the “rigorous” standard that applies for obtaining discovery
in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). “[A] defendant
who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both
discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.” United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862, 863
(2002). Though Thomas claims that BOP supervisors may have acquiesced in his submission of
false count slips in this case, and that other BOP employees have submitted false documents in
other circumstances, he has not presented any evidence that those officers differed from him in
any protected characteristic—for example, that they were of a different race, sex, or ethnicity.
See Motion at 10. Nor has Thomas put forward any evidence of a discriminatory motive for his
prosecution.
Accordingly, Thomas’ motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence that the
submission of false count slips was widespread and tolerated at the BOP, and for discovery
related to selective prosecution, is DENIED.
submission of false count slips was widespread and tolerated at the BOP, and for discovery
related to selective prosecution, is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Thomas’ motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 33.
directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 33.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2020
New York, New York
New York, New York
[Signature]
ANALISA TORRES
United States District Judge
ANALISA TORRES
United States District Judge
9
DOJ-OGR-00022105
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document