mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022076.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14 of 34",
    "document_number": "35",
    "date": "04/24/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 34\nthat the Indictment relates to a 14-hour time period); count slips, thirty minute round forms, and staffing rosters for the three-week period surrounding Epstein's suicide; internal MCC phone records; employee files and staffing history for Noel and Thomas; and a wide range of written Bureau of Prison policies and regulations, among other documents and materials. In addition and while not required by Rule 16, the Government produced months in advance of trial (and now, approximately a year in advance of trial) statements for all of the witnesses interviewed during the investigation. While the Government is not aware of any other information that warrants disclosure, it will produce any such materials to the extent it becomes aware of them.\nThe Government is likewise aware of, and has complied with, its Brady and Giglio obligations. The Government has already produced any evidence in its possession that is arguably exculpatory or impeaching. To the extent Giglio material exists in notes of witness statements or attorney proffers made on behalf of witnesses that have not already been produced, the Government intends to comply with its obligations and will make such disclosures sufficiently in advance of trial to be effectively used. Based on that representation alone, the defendant's motion should be denied. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) (denying a motion to compel because the government \"represented that it had complied with and would continue to comply with its Brady and Rule 16 obligations); United States v. Underwood, No 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005) (\"The courts of this Circuit repeatedly have denied pretrial requests for discovery orders pursuant to Brady where the government has made such good faith representations.\"); United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying defendant's motion to compel production of Brady based on Government's representation that it was aware of and had complied with Brady).\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00022076",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that the Indictment relates to a 14-hour time period); count slips, thirty minute round forms, and staffing rosters for the three-week period surrounding Epstein's suicide; internal MCC phone records; employee files and staffing history for Noel and Thomas; and a wide range of written Bureau of Prison policies and regulations, among other documents and materials. In addition and while not required by Rule 16, the Government produced months in advance of trial (and now, approximately a year in advance of trial) statements for all of the witnesses interviewed during the investigation. While the Government is not aware of any other information that warrants disclosure, it will produce any such materials to the extent it becomes aware of them.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government is likewise aware of, and has complied with, its Brady and Giglio obligations. The Government has already produced any evidence in its possession that is arguably exculpatory or impeaching. To the extent Giglio material exists in notes of witness statements or attorney proffers made on behalf of witnesses that have not already been produced, the Government intends to comply with its obligations and will make such disclosures sufficiently in advance of trial to be effectively used. Based on that representation alone, the defendant's motion should be denied. See United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) (denying a motion to compel because the government \"represented that it had complied with and would continue to comply with its Brady and Rule 16 obligations); United States v. Underwood, No 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005) (\"The courts of this Circuit repeatedly have denied pretrial requests for discovery orders pursuant to Brady where the government has made such good faith representations.\"); United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying defendant's motion to compel production of Brady based on Government's representation that it was aware of and had complied with Brady).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022076",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Noel",
      "Thomas",
      "Gonzalez",
      "Underwood",
      "Perez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Bureau of Prison",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/24/20",
      "Apr. 9, 2020",
      "Apr. 21, 2005",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB)",
      "04 Cr. 424 (RWS)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022076"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 14 of 34."
}