DOJ-OGR-00008215.jpg
699 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
699 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 4, 2021. It discusses legal standards for the relevance and admissibility of evidence, citing case law regarding remote evidence and continuity of conduct (specifically regarding sexual interest in minors). The discussion section argues that 'photographs in the 900 series' corroborate statements made by a witness identified as 'Jane.'
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Her statements are being corroborated by photographs in the 900 series; her recollection is being challenged by defen...
|
| Defense Counsel | Attorney |
Quoted regarding the importance of Jane's recollection.
|
| Friendly, J. | Judge |
Cited in United States v. Southland Corp.
|
| Roux | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Roux regarding evidence establishing sexual interest in minors.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case header.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedents.
|
|
| 7th Cir. |
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedents.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Defense counsel argues Jane's recollection is critical (likely implying it is flawed).
Key Quotes (3)
"Certain photographs in the 900 series are strongly corroborative of specific statements made by Jane."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008215.jpg
Quote #1
"Jane’s recollection 'of everything . . . is critical to the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008215.jpg
Quote #2
"rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they 'were offered to establish Roux’s sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that . . . is unlikely to vanish with the passage of time'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008215.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,058 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 2 of 9
. . .”). The “standard of relevance established by the Federal Rules of Evidence is not high.”
United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1375 (2d Cir. 1985) (Friendly, J.) (internal
quotation marks omitted). A district court’s “evidentiary rulings” are reviewed on appeal “under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard,” and are disturbed only if “manifestly erroneous.”
United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 662 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1375 (2d Cir. 1985) (Friendly, J.) (internal
quotation marks omitted). A district court’s “evidentiary rulings” are reviewed on appeal “under
a deferential abuse of discretion standard,” and are disturbed only if “manifestly erroneous.”
United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 662 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[A] suggestion that an item of evidence relates to a period that is too remote goes to both
the item’s relevance and its weight.” United States v. Certified Env. Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72,
90 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted.). But evidence of continuity between the time
of the consequential fact and the time of the proffered evidence supports a finding of relevance.
See, e.g., id. (evidence that predated the charged conspiracy by five years relevant because it
concerned “a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct,” and evidence
that postdated acts charged in the indictment provided evidence “of a longstanding continuous
mental process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019, 1027
(7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they “were offered
to establish Roux’s sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that . . . is unlikely to vanish with the
passage of time”). And evidence that corroborates earlier evidence is “admissible for the same
reasons.” Certified Env. Servs., 753 F.3d at 91 (“[B]ecause the 2009 guidance document
memorialized the 2006 email exchange, it served to corroborate that evidence, and therefore was
admissible for the same reasons.”).
the item’s relevance and its weight.” United States v. Certified Env. Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72,
90 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted.). But evidence of continuity between the time
of the consequential fact and the time of the proffered evidence supports a finding of relevance.
See, e.g., id. (evidence that predated the charged conspiracy by five years relevant because it
concerned “a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct,” and evidence
that postdated acts charged in the indictment provided evidence “of a longstanding continuous
mental process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019, 1027
(7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they “were offered
to establish Roux’s sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that . . . is unlikely to vanish with the
passage of time”). And evidence that corroborates earlier evidence is “admissible for the same
reasons.” Certified Env. Servs., 753 F.3d at 91 (“[B]ecause the 2009 guidance document
memorialized the 2006 email exchange, it served to corroborate that evidence, and therefore was
admissible for the same reasons.”).
II. Discussion
Certain photographs in the 900 series are strongly corroborative of specific statements
made by Jane. In defense counsel’s words, Jane’s recollection “of everything . . . is critical to the
made by Jane. In defense counsel’s words, Jane’s recollection “of everything . . . is critical to the
2
DOJ-OGR-00008215
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document