mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003011.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "77",
    "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 77 of 239\nto the extent the passage of time affects the memories of witnesses who testify at trial, the defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. See United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting that “the passage of time does affect witnesses’ memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony” and that the Government also faces potential harms from the passage of time).18 Accordingly, the defendant’s bald assertions regarding diminished memories of potential witnesses are speculative and, thus, fall short of the proof of actual prejudice required by the Supreme Court’s standard in Marion.\nThe defendant also claims that because of the delay in the prosecution, she does not have access to certain exculpatory documentary evidence. (Def. Mot. 7 at 12-14). Once again, this argument is entirely speculative. The defendant hypothesizes that if she had access to certain documentary evidence (some of which, such as travel records, has been produced in discovery), or evidence which she herself should have access to (e.g., her own emails from 1994 to 1997, her own phone records from 1994 to 1997, and her own travel records from 1994 to 1997), this evidence would have helped her. She offers no proof or basis for concluding that the records would be helpful. Even if such records were helpful, dismissal of the Indictment would be too extreme a measure in light of the relative significance of this form of evidence to other proof in the case. Thus, the defendant’s claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (“A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate\n18 The Government notes that it faces the same potential harms from the passage of time as does any party, including loss of witnesses through death or disappearance, diminishment of memories over the passage of time, and loss of evidence. The Government, of course, bears the burden of proof at trial, and as such, prosecutors have every incentive to bring cases as promptly as possible, when memories are fresh and when it is possible to identify corroborating witnesses and records. Any suggestion that the Government delayed bringing the instant case for over two decades for its own benefit or a tactical advantage borders on the absurd.\n50\nDOJ-OGR-00003011",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 77 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to the extent the passage of time affects the memories of witnesses who testify at trial, the defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. See United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting that “the passage of time does affect witnesses’ memories and it may be relevant to the credibility of their testimony” and that the Government also faces potential harms from the passage of time).18 Accordingly, the defendant’s bald assertions regarding diminished memories of potential witnesses are speculative and, thus, fall short of the proof of actual prejudice required by the Supreme Court’s standard in Marion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant also claims that because of the delay in the prosecution, she does not have access to certain exculpatory documentary evidence. (Def. Mot. 7 at 12-14). Once again, this argument is entirely speculative. The defendant hypothesizes that if she had access to certain documentary evidence (some of which, such as travel records, has been produced in discovery), or evidence which she herself should have access to (e.g., her own emails from 1994 to 1997, her own phone records from 1994 to 1997, and her own travel records from 1994 to 1997), this evidence would have helped her. She offers no proof or basis for concluding that the records would be helpful. Even if such records were helpful, dismissal of the Indictment would be too extreme a measure in light of the relative significance of this form of evidence to other proof in the case. Thus, the defendant’s claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (“A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 The Government notes that it faces the same potential harms from the passage of time as does any party, including loss of witnesses through death or disappearance, diminishment of memories over the passage of time, and loss of evidence. The Government, of course, bears the burden of proof at trial, and as such, prosecutors have every incentive to bring cases as promptly as possible, when memories are fresh and when it is possible to identify corroborating witnesses and records. Any suggestion that the Government delayed bringing the instant case for over two decades for its own benefit or a tactical advantage borders on the absurd.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "50",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003011",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1994",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "764 F. Supp. 29",
      "356 F. Supp. 1091"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the impact of time on witness memories and the availability of evidence. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}