Relationship Details

This is page 8 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (USA v. Noel and Thomas). The court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel the government to produce evidence held by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), ruling that the BOP is not part of the prosecution team for Brady disclosure purposes. The document also outlines Thomas's argument that the conduct he is charged with was rampant within the BOP and acquiesced to by leadership.

This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) request for certain records. The government contends that the records—related to BOP staffing, policies, and other employees—are not 'material' to preparing a legal defense under Rule 16. Instead, the government asserts Thomas seeks these records for the impermissible purpose of encouraging jury nullification by arguing that poor conditions at the BOP 'led' to his alleged criminal conduct.

This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) motion for discovery. The government contends that searching for certain records from the BOP, CIA, and Vice President's office would be an undue burden and that a draft Inspector General report is not subject to disclosure because it is not material to the defense and is protected by deliberative process privilege. The government states the report is not yet complete and the prosecution team has no involvement in its creation.

This document is page 7 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in the case of United States v. Thomas (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). The Court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel disclosure of the Inspector General's report regarding Epstein's death because the report did not exist at the time. Furthermore, the Court rules that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is not considered part of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), as there is no evidence BOP officials participated in the criminal investigation leading to Thomas' indictment.

This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 24, 2020, involving the prosecution of prison guards (specifically defendant Thomas) related to the events of August 9-10, 2019 (Jeffrey Epstein's suicide). The Government argues against Thomas's request for BOP records regarding staffing shortages and prior instances of falsified records, asserting that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team and therefore the Government is not obligated to search BOP files under discovery rules. The text cites legal precedents (U.S. v. Bryan, U.S. v. Volpe) to support the limitation of 'government' to only those agencies participating in the specific investigation.

This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 35) from case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It contains the Government's legal argument opposing discovery requests made by the defendant, Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein jail case). The Government argues that Thomas's requests are irrelevant to the charges and are instead an attempt to 'garner sympathy' and argue 'jury nullification,' citing various legal precedents to support the exclusion of such evidence.

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.

This document is page 33 of a court filing (Document 35) from April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Tova Noel and Michael Thomas). The Government argues against defendant Thomas's motion for discovery regarding a 'selective prosecution' claim. The text asserts that Thomas failed to provide evidence of discriminatory purpose or bad faith by the Government, rejecting his defense that similar misconduct is 'rampant' within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Footnote 8 clarifies that selective prosecution is an issue for the judge, not the jury, as it does not relate to factual innocence.

This document is page 5 of a court filing (Document 35) from April 24, 2020, in the case against prison guards Noel and Thomas (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). It details legal maneuvering regarding discovery, specifically focusing on requests for MCC video surveillance footage and reports from the Inspector General. The text notes that Thomas considered filing a motion to dismiss based on 'selective prosecution' but failed to do so by the deadline.