{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "198",
    "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 198 of 239\ndismissal of count as multiplicitous prior to trial, as such a determination before trial is \"at best premature\"). Among other reasons, courts look to \"the record as a whole in determining whether an indictment is in fact multiplicitous,\" and the record cannot be fully established until trial is complete. United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, because double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 (\"Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one punishment is eventually imposed.\")\n\nFollowing the Second Circuit's directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that \"[c]ourts in this Circuit have routinely denied pretrial motions to dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature.\" (quoting United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014))); United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count in light of \"the Circuit's controlling view that the question of multiplicitousness is properly considered only at a later point in the proceedings\"); United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"[M]ultiplicity is properly addressed by the trial court at the sentencing stage.\"); United States v. Ghavami, No. 10 Cr. 1217 (KMW), 2012 WL 2878126, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012) (\"To the extent that the Indictment alleges more than one conspiracy . . ., Defendants' multiplicity challenge is premature. Should the jury convict Defendants on what the Court ultimately determines to be multiplicitous counts,\n\n171\nDOJ-OGR-00003132",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 198 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "dismissal of count as multiplicitous prior to trial, as such a determination before trial is \"at best premature\"). Among other reasons, courts look to \"the record as a whole in determining whether an indictment is in fact multiplicitous,\" and the record cannot be fully established until trial is complete. United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, because double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 (\"Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one punishment is eventually imposed.\")",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Following the Second Circuit's directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that \"[c]ourts in this Circuit have routinely denied pretrial motions to dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature.\" (quoting United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014))); United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count in light of \"the Circuit's controlling view that the question of multiplicitousness is properly considered only at a later point in the proceedings\"); United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"[M]ultiplicity is properly addressed by the trial court at the sentencing stage.\"); United States v. Ghavami, No. 10 Cr. 1217 (KMW), 2012 WL 2878126, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012) (\"To the extent that the Indictment alleges more than one conspiracy . . ., Defendants' multiplicity challenge is premature. Should the jury convict Defendants on what the Court ultimately determines to be multiplicitous counts,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "171",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003132",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Oct. 1, 2020",
      "July 7, 2014",
      "June 26, 2018",
      "July 13, 2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "562 F.3d 458",
      "459 F.3d 355",
      "No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB)",
      "2020 WL 5849512",
      "No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG)",
      "2014 WL 3057917",
      "No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK)",
      "2018 WL 3407703",
      "965 F. Supp. 2d 451",
      "No. 10 Cr. 1217 (KMW)",
      "2012 WL 2878126",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003132"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal references."
}