mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003067.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "133",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 133 of 239\ninvestigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997).\nUnited States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Generally, to be ‘outrageous,’ the government’s involvement in a crime must involve either coercion or a violation of the defendant’s person. It does not suffice to show that the government created the opportunity for the offense, even if the government’s ploy is elaborate and the engagement with the defendant is extensive.” (internal citations omitted)). The Second Circuit has “yet to identify a particular set of circumstances in which government investigative conduct was so egregious that it shocked the conscience and violated fundamental guarantees of due process.” United States v. Heyward, No. 10 Cr. 84 (LTS), 2010 WL 4484642, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010); see also United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 218 (2d Cir. 2019).\nThere also “must be a causal connection between the violation and the deprivation of the defendant’s life or liberty threatened by the prosecution.” United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “That is to say, relief against the government in a criminal case is appropriate if, and only if, a conviction otherwise would be a product of the government misconduct that violated the Due Process Clause.” Id.\nEven where Government misconduct meets the outrageousness test, dismissal of an indictment is warranted only where the Government’s behavior “resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant’s] defense or legal representation.” United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is suppression of the evidence obtained as the result of the Government’s outrageous misconduct. Id.\n106\nDOJ-OGR-00003067",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 133 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997).\nUnited States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Generally, to be ‘outrageous,’ the government’s involvement in a crime must involve either coercion or a violation of the defendant’s person. It does not suffice to show that the government created the opportunity for the offense, even if the government’s ploy is elaborate and the engagement with the defendant is extensive.” (internal citations omitted)). The Second Circuit has “yet to identify a particular set of circumstances in which government investigative conduct was so egregious that it shocked the conscience and violated fundamental guarantees of due process.” United States v. Heyward, No. 10 Cr. 84 (LTS), 2010 WL 4484642, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010); see also United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 218 (2d Cir. 2019).\nThere also “must be a causal connection between the violation and the deprivation of the defendant’s life or liberty threatened by the prosecution.” United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “That is to say, relief against the government in a criminal case is appropriate if, and only if, a conviction otherwise would be a product of the government misconduct that violated the Due Process Clause.” Id.\nEven where Government misconduct meets the outrageousness test, dismissal of an indictment is warranted only where the Government’s behavior “resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant’s] defense or legal representation.” United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is suppression of the evidence obtained as the result of the Government’s outrageous misconduct. Id.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "106",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003067",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Schmidt",
      "Rahman",
      "Al Kassar",
      "Heyward",
      "Cromitie",
      "Ghailani",
      "DiGregorio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Nov. 9, 2010",
      "1997",
      "1999",
      "2011",
      "2010",
      "2019",
      "1992"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "10 Cr. 84 (LTS)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003067"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with legal citations and references. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger legal brief or opinion."
}