mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004165.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30 of 34",
    "document_number": "285",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 30 of 34\n\nIn turn, this already high standard ratchets up even higher when a prosecutor appears before the court ex parte. \"The duty of candor is, if anything, more critical when ex parte applications are made to a court.\" In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017); see N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d) (\"In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.\"); see also id. cmt. [14]. And it \"is not a defense to claim that, while factual statements to the Court were materially misleading, they were not literally false. Attorneys are officers of the Court, and our system of justice cannot operate efficiently if the Court cannot rely on the candor of counsel presenting an application for ex parte relief.\" Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\nAUSA failed to live up to these standards. In an ex parte proceeding, AUSA affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, with full knowledge of what issue concerned Judge McMahon and what information would be material to her decision. When, as here, \"there has been a fraud upon the court,\" Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1216, \"[t]he court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar . . . [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law,\" id. at 1214. United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings. . . .\")\n\n25\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004165",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 30 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In turn, this already high standard ratchets up even higher when a prosecutor appears before the court ex parte. \"The duty of candor is, if anything, more critical when ex parte applications are made to a court.\" In re WinNet R CJSC, 2017 WL 1373918, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017); see N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(d) (\"In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.\"); see also id. cmt. [14]. And it \"is not a defense to claim that, while factual statements to the Court were materially misleading, they were not literally false. Attorneys are officers of the Court, and our system of justice cannot operate efficiently if the Court cannot rely on the candor of counsel presenting an application for ex parte relief.\" Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "AUSA failed to live up to these standards. In an ex parte proceeding, AUSA affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, with full knowledge of what issue concerned Judge McMahon and what information would be material to her decision. When, as here, \"there has been a fraud upon the court,\" Cortina, 630 F.2d at 1216, \"[t]he court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar . . . [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law,\" id. at 1214. United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings. . . .\")",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004165",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/20/21",
      "Apr. 13, 2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 285",
      "16MC484(DLC)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004165"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}