DOJ-OGR-00019375.jpg
693 KB
Extraction Summary
12
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (page 9 of 23)
File Size:
693 KB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (United States v. Maxwell). The text outlines legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and 'interlocutory appeals' in criminal cases. It cites numerous precedents (Cohen, Stack, Abney, Sell) to demonstrate that the Supreme Court rarely permits appeals before a trial concludes, arguing that an order is only immediately reviewable if rights would be 'effectively unreviewable' later.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Robinson | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in States v. Robinson
|
| Cohen | Legal Case Reference |
Reference to Cohen doctrine regarding collateral orders
|
| Stack | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Stack v. Boyle regarding bond denial
|
| Boyle | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Stack v. Boyle
|
| Abney | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Abney v. United States regarding Double Jeopardy
|
| Helstoski | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Helstoski v. Meanor regarding Speech or Debate Clause
|
| Meanor | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Helstoski v. Meanor
|
| Sell | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Sell v. United States regarding forced administration of drugs
|
| Van Cauwenberghe | Legal Case Reference |
Referenced regarding legal criteria for reviewability
|
| Punn | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in United States v. Punn
|
| Chasser | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser
|
| Carpenter | Legal Case Reference |
Cited in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (mentioned in citations)
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Mentioned as identifying types of pretrial orders
|
|
| Midland Asphalt |
Company cited in legal precedent
|
|
| Lauro Lines s.r.l. |
Company cited in legal precedent
|
|
| Mohawk Indus., Inc. |
Company cited in legal precedent
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (implied by footer stamp)
|
Key Quotes (2)
"In over 70 years since Cohen was decided... the Supreme Court has identified only four types of pretrial orders in criminal cases as satisfying the collateral-order doctrine"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019375.jpg
Quote #1
"The justification for immediate appeal must . . . be sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until litigation concludes."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019375.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,672 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page9 of 23
States v. Robinson, 473 F.3d 487, 490 (2d Cir. 2007). In over 70 years since
Cohen was decided, despite “numerous opportunities” to expand the doctrine,
Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799, the Supreme Court has identified only four
types of pretrial orders in criminal cases as satisfying the collateral-order doctrine:
an order denying a bond, Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951); an order denying a
motion to dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds, Abney v. United States, 431 U.S.
651 (1977); an order denying a motion to dismiss under the Speech or Debate
Clause, Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (1979); and an order permitting the
forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for
trial, Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). In contrast, the circumstances in
which the Supreme Court has “refused to permit interlocutory appeals” in criminal
cases have been “far more numerous.” Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799.
Cohen was decided, despite “numerous opportunities” to expand the doctrine,
Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799, the Supreme Court has identified only four
types of pretrial orders in criminal cases as satisfying the collateral-order doctrine:
an order denying a bond, Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951); an order denying a
motion to dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds, Abney v. United States, 431 U.S.
651 (1977); an order denying a motion to dismiss under the Speech or Debate
Clause, Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (1979); and an order permitting the
forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for
trial, Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). In contrast, the circumstances in
which the Supreme Court has “refused to permit interlocutory appeals” in criminal
cases have been “far more numerous.” Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799.
13. As to the third Van Cauwenberghe criterion, “[a]n order is
‘effectively unreviewable’ where ‘the order at issue involves an asserted right the
legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated
before trial.’” United States v. Punn, 737 F.3d 1, 5 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Lauro
Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 498-99 (1989)). “The justification for
immediate appeal must . . . be sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of
deferring appeal until litigation concludes.” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558
U.S. 100, 107 (2009). A ruling that is burdensome to a party “in ways that are only
‘effectively unreviewable’ where ‘the order at issue involves an asserted right the
legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated
before trial.’” United States v. Punn, 737 F.3d 1, 5 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Lauro
Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 498-99 (1989)). “The justification for
immediate appeal must . . . be sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of
deferring appeal until litigation concludes.” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558
U.S. 100, 107 (2009). A ruling that is burdensome to a party “in ways that are only
9
DOJ-OGR-00019375
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document