{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47 of 51",
    "document_number": "621",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 47 of 51\n\nAs the Government explained in its memorandum in opposition to the defendant's twelve pre-trial motions, dated February 26, 2021 (Dkt. No. 204 at 41-59), and in its memorandum in opposition to the defendant's supplemental motions, dated May 21, 2021 (Dkt. No. 295 at 13-16), the Indictments in this case were brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of evidence to support the charges. Any suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed obtaining the Indictments to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact, and for good reason: it is not true. The defendant has not established—and cannot establish—an undue delay, much less an intentional and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose.\n\nIn her current motion, the defendant offers no additional argument or factual claims whatsoever in support of her argument that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. Indeed, she ignores the second prong of the pre-indictment delay standard and refers the Court back to her prior briefing, which this Court has twice considered and rejected. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). If anything, the trial record undermined the defendant's argument on this prong. In an effort to show the victims' supposed financial motivations for testifying, the defendant repeatedly focused the jury's attention on the fact that victims only recently agreed to cooperate with the Government. That same evidence precludes any argument of intentional delay by the Government. The defendant's renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.\n\n46\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009609",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 47 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Government explained in its memorandum in opposition to the defendant's twelve pre-trial motions, dated February 26, 2021 (Dkt. No. 204 at 41-59), and in its memorandum in opposition to the defendant's supplemental motions, dated May 21, 2021 (Dkt. No. 295 at 13-16), the Indictments in this case were brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of evidence to support the charges. Any suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed obtaining the Indictments to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact, and for good reason: it is not true. The defendant has not established—and cannot establish—an undue delay, much less an intentional and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In her current motion, the defendant offers no additional argument or factual claims whatsoever in support of her argument that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. Indeed, she ignores the second prong of the pre-indictment delay standard and refers the Court back to her prior briefing, which this Court has twice considered and rejected. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). If anything, the trial record undermined the defendant's argument on this prong. In an effort to show the victims' supposed financial motivations for testifying, the defendant repeatedly focused the jury's attention on the fact that victims only recently agreed to cooperate with the Government. That same evidence precludes any argument of intentional delay by the Government. The defendant's renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "46",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009609",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 26, 2021",
      "May 21, 2021",
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "621",
      "204",
      "295",
      "207",
      "317",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009609"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}