mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011429.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "732",
    "date": "07/14/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 6 of 25\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 22, 2021\nPage 6\nimpeachment evidence constitutes exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed. The disclosure of impeachment evidence, where 'the [g]overnment's case depended almost entirely on [the victim's] testimony,' goes to the heart of Brady and Giglio.\" (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55 (1972)).3\nLastly, Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to compulsory process, U.S. Const. amend. VI, which includes the ability to compel production of relevant documents. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711.\nB. The materials requested are relevant.\nThe standard for relevance is \"very low,\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 401 prescribes a \"very low standard\"), and the definition of relevance is \"very broad,\" United States v. Certified Envtl. Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014). \"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.\" Fed. R. Evid. 401. \"To be relevant, evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove a fact in issue. . . .\" United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 132 (2d Cir. 2010).\nMoreover, materials don't magically lose their relevance simply because other evidence might also be relevant to the same issue. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 179 (1997)\n3 See also United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1987) (explaining that impeachment evidence of uncorroborated testimony is material where the witness \"whose credibility was at issue supplied the only evidence linking the defendant[] to the crime\"); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376, 382 (2d Cir. 1974) (finding Brady violation occurred where the prosecution did not disclose that a witness identified someone other than the accused); United States v. Wilkins, 326 F.2d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1964) (where the state's case depended on the positive identification by two witnesses, the existence of two other witnesses who would testify the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime was material).\nDOJ-OGR-00011429",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 6 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 22, 2021\nPage 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "impeachment evidence constitutes exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed. The disclosure of impeachment evidence, where 'the [g]overnment's case depended almost entirely on [the victim's] testimony,' goes to the heart of Brady and Giglio.\" (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55 (1972)).3\nLastly, Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to compulsory process, U.S. Const. amend. VI, which includes the ability to compel production of relevant documents. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The materials requested are relevant.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The standard for relevance is \"very low,\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 401 prescribes a \"very low standard\"), and the definition of relevance is \"very broad,\" United States v. Certified Envtl. Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014). \"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.\" Fed. R. Evid. 401. \"To be relevant, evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove a fact in issue. . . .\" United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 132 (2d Cir. 2010).\nMoreover, materials don't magically lose their relevance simply because other evidence might also be relevant to the same issue. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 179 (1997)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 See also United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1987) (explaining that impeachment evidence of uncorroborated testimony is material where the witness \"whose credibility was at issue supplied the only evidence linking the defendant[] to the crime\"); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376, 382 (2d Cir. 1974) (finding Brady violation occurred where the prosecution did not disclose that a witness identified someone other than the accused); United States v. Wilkins, 326 F.2d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1964) (where the state's case depended on the positive identification by two witnesses, the existence of two other witnesses who would testify the defendant was not the perpetrator of the crime was material).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011429",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Giglio",
      "Nixon",
      "White",
      "Petrillo",
      "Alldredge",
      "Wilkins",
      "Abu-Jihaad",
      "Old Chief"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 22, 2021",
      "07/14/22",
      "1972",
      "2012",
      "2014",
      "2010",
      "1997",
      "1987",
      "1974",
      "1964"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "732",
      "405 U.S. 150",
      "418 U.S. 711",
      "692 F.3d 235",
      "753 F.3d 72",
      "630 F.3d 102",
      "519 U.S. 172",
      "821 F.2d 85",
      "498 F.2d 376",
      "326 F.2d 135"
    ]
  },
  "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 is well-formatted and legible."
}