mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022100.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "36",
    "date": "06/09/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 9\n\nIf the Government represents that it “it has fully complied with [its Rule 16] obligations and will continue to do so,” the defendant must put forward some “compelling demonstration to the contrary” by pointing to a “specific failure by the Government to comply with its disclosure obligations” in order to justify a motion to compel. United States v. Minaya, 395 F. Supp. 2d 28, 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).\n\nB. Brady/Giglio\n\nUnder the Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland, the Government “has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to an accused when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment,” and as elaborated in Giglio v. United States, that obligation extends to “not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key [G]overnment witness.” United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001). “Evidence is material within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1893 (2017) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted)); see also Coppa, 267 F.3d at 135 (“[T]he prosecutor must disclose evidence if, without such disclosure, a reasonable probability will exist that the outcome of a trial in which the evidence had been disclosed would have been different.”).\n\n“The prosecution’s obligation to disclose Brady material extends to any material in the possession of any entity that has acted as an ‘arm of the prosecutor’ in a given case.” United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (quoting United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). “A prosecutor’s duty to review documents in the possession, custody, or control of another agency",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the Government represents that it “it has fully complied with [its Rule 16] obligations and will continue to do so,” the defendant must put forward some “compelling demonstration to the contrary” by pointing to a “specific failure by the Government to comply with its disclosure obligations” in order to justify a motion to compel. United States v. Minaya, 395 F. Supp. 2d 28, 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Brady/Giglio",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland, the Government “has a constitutional duty to disclose evidence favorable to an accused when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment,” and as elaborated in Giglio v. United States, that obligation extends to “not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key [G]overnment witness.” United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001). “Evidence is material within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1893 (2017) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted)); see also Coppa, 267 F.3d at 135 (“[T]he prosecutor must disclose evidence if, without such disclosure, a reasonable probability will exist that the outcome of a trial in which the evidence had been disclosed would have been different.”)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "“The prosecution’s obligation to disclose Brady material extends to any material in the possession of any entity that has acted as an ‘arm of the prosecutor’ in a given case.” United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (quoting United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). “A prosecutor’s duty to review documents in the possession, custody, or control of another agency",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022100",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "Maryland",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/09/20",
      "2005",
      "2001",
      "2017",
      "Aug. 17, 2018",
      "2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "36",
      "395 F. Supp. 2d 28",
      "34",
      "267 F.3d 132",
      "135",
      "137 S. Ct. 1885",
      "1893",
      "No. 18 Cr. 36",
      "2018 WL 3956494",
      "*4",
      "308 F. Supp. 3d 736",
      "741"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing legal obligations under Rule 16, Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}