DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
743 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
9
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (case 1:19-cr-00830-at)
File Size:
743 KB
Summary
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 35) from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 24, 2020. The text outlines legal arguments and precedents regarding the Government's obligation (under Rule 16 and Brady) to review and produce records held by other agencies. It cites multiple cases to establish that the prosecution is not required to search other agencies' records (such as the SEC, PCAOB, or FAA) unless a 'joint investigation' was conducted with that specific agency.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Chin, J. | Judge |
Judge cited in United States v. Finnerty opinion.
|
| Rigas | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited case United States v. Rigas regarding joint investigations.
|
| Blaszczak | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited case United States v. Blaszczak regarding SEC material obligations.
|
| Middendorf | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited case United States v. Middendorf regarding PCAOB/SEC obligations.
|
| Collins | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited case United States v. Collins.
|
| Finnerty | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited case United States v. Finnerty.
|
| Upton | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited case United States v. Upton regarding FAA cooperation.
|
Organizations (9)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
Mentioned in multiple case citations regarding whether the government must produce documents in their custody.
|
|
| Public Company Accounting Oversight Board |
Mentioned in U.S. v. Middendorf citation regarding witness interviews and strategy.
|
|
| New York Stock Exchange |
Mentioned in U.S. v. Finnerty regarding joint investigations.
|
|
| Federal Aviation Administration |
Mentioned in U.S. v. Upton; noted that providing inspectors did not constitute a 'joint investigation'.
|
|
| USAO |
Mentioned in U.S. v. Upton citation.
|
|
| Government |
Refers to the prosecution/DOJ in the context of legal obligations under Brady and Rule 16.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Court jurisdiction cited.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Court jurisdiction cited.
|
|
| E.D.N.Y. |
Court jurisdiction cited.
|
Relationships (2)
Discusses whether their interactions constitute a 'joint investigation' for discovery purposes.
Citation notes FAA provided two inspectors to assist USAO in a criminal investigation (Upton case).
Key Quotes (3)
"a prosecutor’s duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a 'joint investigation' with that agency or branch of government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
Quote #1
"holding that there was 'no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)]' and therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
Quote #2
"holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) did not conduct a 'joint investigation' even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the criminal investigation"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,139 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 22 of 34
56, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (defendants were not deprived of due process by any alleged failure of U.S.
government to help them obtain cooperation from foreign authorities).
government to help them obtain cooperation from foreign authorities).
In considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another
government agency, a prosecutor’s duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the
Government conducts a “joint investigation” with that agency or branch of government. See
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court opinion holding that
there was “no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)]” and
therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC); United
States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that the Government
was not obligated to review SEC material for Brady where SEC was not involved in grand jury
presentation, did not attend every interview, did not review documents gathered only by
prosecution, and did not develop prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr.
36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (holding that the Government was
not required to conduct a search because the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(“PCAOB”)] was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and the
SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government’s
investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228,
241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between Government and SEC); United States v.
Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (no joint investigation between
Government and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”)); United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp.
727, 749-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)
did not conduct a “joint investigation” even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the
criminal investigation).
government agency, a prosecutor’s duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the
Government conducts a “joint investigation” with that agency or branch of government. See
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court opinion holding that
there was “no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)]” and
therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC); United
States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that the Government
was not obligated to review SEC material for Brady where SEC was not involved in grand jury
presentation, did not attend every interview, did not review documents gathered only by
prosecution, and did not develop prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr.
36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (holding that the Government was
not required to conduct a search because the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(“PCAOB”)] was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and the
SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government’s
investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228,
241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between Government and SEC); United States v.
Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (no joint investigation between
Government and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”)); United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp.
727, 749-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)
did not conduct a “joint investigation” even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the
criminal investigation).
17
DOJ-OGR-00022084
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document