mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022086.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "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 24 of 34\n\n2. Discussion\n\nAs described above, the Government has produced Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16 material in the possession of the prosecutors and agents at the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the DOJ-OIG who have worked on this investigation and prosecution. Thomas seeks materials that are not in the possession of the United States Attorney's Office or the case teams at the FBI and DOJ-OIG who worked on this criminal investigation.\n\nThomas seeks a variety of records from the BOP. The BOP was not a member of the prosecution team, and no employee of the BOP performed investigative duties or made strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case. Indeed, the Government obtained records from the MCC (a component of the BOP) pursuant to a grand jury subpoena to the institution and written requests to the MCC's legal department. Likewise, the Government was not involved in any internal BOP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's suicide. Notwithstanding those facts, the defendant asserts that the BOP is \"allied with the prosecution\" and therefore the Government's discovery and disclosure obligations extend to materials exclusively in the possession of the BOP. That argument is not only belied by the facts, but it is settled law in this Circuit that a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing the materials in the possession, custody, or control of another agency for Brady evidence only where the Government conducts a \"joint investigation\" with that agency. None of the indicia of a \"joint\" or \"allied\" prosecution, as discussed in the foregoing case law, is present here. A straightforward application of those factors considered by courts in this Circuit reveals that the investigation was in no way joint; the BOP did not participate in the prosecution's witness interviews; it was not involved in presenting the case to the grand jury; no BOP employees aided in the review of documents gathered by the\n\n19\n\nDOJ-OGR-00022086",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 24 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Discussion",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As described above, the Government has produced Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16 material in the possession of the prosecutors and agents at the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the DOJ-OIG who have worked on this investigation and prosecution. Thomas seeks materials that are not in the possession of the United States Attorney's Office or the case teams at the FBI and DOJ-OIG who worked on this criminal investigation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thomas seeks a variety of records from the BOP. The BOP was not a member of the prosecution team, and no employee of the BOP performed investigative duties or made strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case. Indeed, the Government obtained records from the MCC (a component of the BOP) pursuant to a grand jury subpoena to the institution and written requests to the MCC's legal department. Likewise, the Government was not involved in any internal BOP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Epstein's suicide. Notwithstanding those facts, the defendant asserts that the BOP is \"allied with the prosecution\" and therefore the Government's discovery and disclosure obligations extend to materials exclusively in the possession of the BOP. That argument is not only belied by the facts, but it is settled law in this Circuit that a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing the materials in the possession, custody, or control of another agency for Brady evidence only where the Government conducts a \"joint investigation\" with that agency. None of the indicia of a \"joint\" or \"allied\" prosecution, as discussed in the foregoing case law, is present here. A straightforward application of those factors considered by courts in this Circuit reveals that the investigation was in no way joint; the BOP did not participate in the prosecution's witness interviews; it was not involved in presenting the case to the grand jury; no BOP employees aided in the review of documents gathered by the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022086",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Thomas",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney's Office",
      "FBI",
      "DOJ-OIG",
      "BOP",
      "MCC"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/24/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022086"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Thomas. The text discusses the Government's discovery and disclosure obligations and the defendant's request for records from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}