{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "170",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 170 of 239\nconsciousness of guilt, such as false exculpatory statements, may also tend to prove knowledge and intent of a conspiracy's purpose . . .\" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\nSecond, the offenses are logically connected and are part of the same common plan or scheme. It is settled law in this Circuit that joinder of \"underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts\" is appropriate \"where, as here, the false declarations concern the substantive offenses.\" Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791; see also United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1992) (same). In Ruiz, the defendant was a New York state senator who founded a nonprofit that was developing a mall in the Bronx, and for which he provided consulting services. In 1984 and 1985, he made two loan applications for funds to invest in the project, on which he made false statements. Id. at 503-04. In 1986, the defendant also lied about his possession of a letter from the Senate Ethics Committee to a grand jury that was investigating his consulting activities for the nonprofit. Id. at 503. He was charged with two counts of false statements on the loan applications and one count of perjury, and he moved to sever the perjury charge. The district court denied the motion, explaining that, although the \"alleged perjury did not occur during a specific investigation by the grand jury into the alleged bank fraud,\" the statements nonetheless \"concerned the defendant's scheme to maximize his personal gain from the [project], as well as to cover any improprieties that scheme might involve.\" Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066, 1076-77 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)) (emphasis omitted). And the Second Circuit affirmed, explaining that the counts had \"sufficient logical connection\" because they all \"relate to [the defendant's] extra-senatorial activities through the [nonprofit],\" and therefore were \"part of a common scheme or plan.\" Ruiz, 894 F.2d at 505. So too here: the defendant's perjury did not occur in the context of a grand jury investigation into the same sexual offenses charged in the Indictment, but the statements concerned those offenses and sought to conceal the defendant's role\n143\nDOJ-OGR-00003104",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 170 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "consciousness of guilt, such as false exculpatory statements, may also tend to prove knowledge and intent of a conspiracy's purpose . . .\" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\nSecond, the offenses are logically connected and are part of the same common plan or scheme. It is settled law in this Circuit that joinder of \"underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts\" is appropriate \"where, as here, the false declarations concern the substantive offenses.\" Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791; see also United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1992) (same). In Ruiz, the defendant was a New York state senator who founded a nonprofit that was developing a mall in the Bronx, and for which he provided consulting services. In 1984 and 1985, he made two loan applications for funds to invest in the project, on which he made false statements. Id. at 503-04. In 1986, the defendant also lied about his possession of a letter from the Senate Ethics Committee to a grand jury that was investigating his consulting activities for the nonprofit. Id. at 503. He was charged with two counts of false statements on the loan applications and one count of perjury, and he moved to sever the perjury charge. The district court denied the motion, explaining that, although the \"alleged perjury did not occur during a specific investigation by the grand jury into the alleged bank fraud,\" the statements nonetheless \"concerned the defendant's scheme to maximize his personal gain from the [project], as well as to cover any improprieties that scheme might involve.\" Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. at 1190 (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066, 1076-77 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)) (emphasis omitted). And the Second Circuit affirmed, explaining that the counts had \"sufficient logical connection\" because they all \"relate to [the defendant's] extra-senatorial activities through the [nonprofit],\" and therefore were \"part of a common scheme or plan.\" Ruiz, 894 F.2d at 505. So too here: the defendant's perjury did not occur in the context of a grand jury investigation into the same sexual offenses charged in the Indictment, but the statements concerned those offenses and sought to conceal the defendant's role",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "143",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003104",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Senate Ethics Committee",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Bronx",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1984",
      "1985",
      "1986",
      "1989"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "739 F.2d",
      "894 F.2d 501",
      "702 F. Supp. 1066",
      "797 F. Supp.",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003104"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal precedents and the connection between different offenses in a case."
}