mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003062.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "128",
    "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 128 of 239\remployer was required to warn her that it might produce the phone to the government, even assuming arguendo that that employer's actions were attributable to the government).\nThe defendant's claim that her act of production privilege was somehow violated similarly fails. Counsel cites Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) for the proposition that \"a compulsory production of the private books and papers . . . [also] is compelling . . . him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment.\" (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business documents, and also noted that \"[s]everal aspects of the Boyd decision did not endure.\" 1 F.3d at 90 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)).\nFurther, the Fifth Amendment does not protect against being compelled to speak and then speaking falsely. \"[E]ven if an individual's perjured testimony is improperly procured because of government misconduct, that testimony may still be used to prosecute that defendant for perjury.\" United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965)); see also United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 180 (1977) (\"[P]erjury is not a permissible way of objecting to the Government's questions. . . . Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to answer falsely.\"); Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72, 90 (1969) (rejecting challenge to false statement prosecution; \"[I]t cannot be thought that as a general principle of our law a citizen has a privilege to answer fraudulently a question that the Government should not have asked. . . . A citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood.\").\n101\nDOJ-OGR-00003062",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 128 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "employer was required to warn her that it might produce the phone to the government, even assuming arguendo that that employer's actions were attributable to the government).\nThe defendant's claim that her act of production privilege was somehow violated similarly fails. Counsel cites Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) for the proposition that \"a compulsory production of the private books and papers . . . [also] is compelling . . . him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment.\" (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business documents, and also noted that \"[s]everal aspects of the Boyd decision did not endure.\" 1 F.3d at 90 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)).\nFurther, the Fifth Amendment does not protect against being compelled to speak and then speaking falsely. \"[E]ven if an individual's perjured testimony is improperly procured because of government misconduct, that testimony may still be used to prosecute that defendant for perjury.\" United States v. Olivieri, 740 F. Supp. 2d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953); United States v. Winter, 348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965)); see also United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 180 (1977) (\"[P]erjury is not a permissible way of objecting to the Government's questions. . . . Indeed, even if the Government could, on pain of criminal sanctions, compel an answer to its incriminating questions, a citizen is not at liberty to answer falsely.\"); Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72, 90 (1969) (rejecting challenge to false statement prosecution; \"[I]t cannot be thought that as a general principle of our law a citizen has a privilege to answer fraudulently a question that the Government should not have asked. . . . A citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood.\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "101",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003062",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Fifth Amendment"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Oct. 29, 1992",
      "1886",
      "1976",
      "2010",
      "1953",
      "1965",
      "1977",
      "1969"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Page 128 of 239",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003062"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with citations to various legal precedents and statutes. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}