mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022085.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "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 23 of 34\n\nMoreover, even where agents from a component of an agency are involved in an investigation, that does not render the entirety of an agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g., United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (\"While the prosecution's [Rule 16] disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned.\"); United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 218 (3d Cir. 2005) (\"[T]hat other agents in the ([Department of Labor (\"DOL\")] participated in this investigation does not mean that the entire DOL is properly considered part of the prosecution team.\"); see also United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 949 (2d Cir.1993) (refusing, for Brady purposes, to impute to AUSAs prosecuting that action with the assistance of certain FBI agents knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were \"uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants\"); but see United States v. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and progress of the case were part of the \"government\" for Rule 16 purposes).\n\nThus, as the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records are in the \"possession\" of the Government include whether the agency or component: \"(1) participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4) played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.\" Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4.\n\n18\nDOJ-OGR-00022085",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 23 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, even where agents from a component of an agency are involved in an investigation, that does not render the entirety of an agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g., United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (\"While the prosecution's [Rule 16] disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned.\"); United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 218 (3d Cir. 2005) (\"[T]hat other agents in the ([Department of Labor (\"DOL\")] participated in this investigation does not mean that the entire DOL is properly considered part of the prosecution team.\"); see also United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 949 (2d Cir.1993) (refusing, for Brady purposes, to impute to AUSAs prosecuting that action with the assistance of certain FBI agents knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were \"uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants\"); but see United States v. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and progress of the case were part of the \"government\" for Rule 16 purposes).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thus, as the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records are in the \"possession\" of the Government include whether the agency or component: \"(1) participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4) played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.\" Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022085",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Labor",
      "FBI",
      "Department of Justice",
      "AUSAs"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/24/20",
      "2006",
      "2005",
      "1993",
      "2010",
      "2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022085"
    ]
  },
  "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 well-formatted and legible."
}