mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003152.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "218",
    "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 218 of 239 anticipated witnesses available . . . ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial.\"); United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) (“The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and 404(b) obligations and will comply with them in a timely fashion, as appropriate. Based on the Government's representations, and on the current posture of this case, the Court expects that the Government will comply timely with all of its obligations under Brady, Giglio, the Jencks Act, and Rule 404(b), and does not find a need to order compliance at this time.” (internal citation omitted)); Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 308 (“Here the government has represented that it intends to produce Giglio material no later than the Friday of the week before a witness is scheduled to testify at trial, in accordance with its usual practice. To the extent that the government's disclosure in this case proves unusually voluminous or complex, the government has in good-faith represented that it intends to produce Giglio material sufficiently in advance of their witnesses' testimony so as to avoid any delay in trial. At the time of those disclosures, to the extent that Defendants feel that additional time is necessary given the volume or complexity of the materials provided, the Court will consider applications to continue or recall witnesses. It is unnecessary, however, to order early disclosure at this time.\"); United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying analogous motion and noting that “[i]t has been the practice of this Court and of other courts in this district to require that the Government produce these materials a few days before the start of trial”). Because the Government has committed to providing the defense with Giglio material multiple weeks in advance of trial, which is ample time for the defense to prepare its cross-examination of the Government's witnesses, this motion should be denied. 191 DOJ-OGR-00003152",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 218 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "anticipated witnesses available . . . ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial.\"); United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) (“The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Giglio, Jencks Act, and 404(b) obligations and will comply with them in a timely fashion, as appropriate. Based on the Government's representations, and on the current posture of this case, the Court expects that the Government will comply timely with all of its obligations under Brady, Giglio, the Jencks Act, and Rule 404(b), and does not find a need to order compliance at this time.” (internal citation omitted)); Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 308 (“Here the government has represented that it intends to produce Giglio material no later than the Friday of the week before a witness is scheduled to testify at trial, in accordance with its usual practice. To the extent that the government's disclosure in this case proves unusually voluminous or complex, the government has in good-faith represented that it intends to produce Giglio material sufficiently in advance of their witnesses' testimony so as to avoid any delay in trial. At the time of those disclosures, to the extent that Defendants feel that additional time is necessary given the volume or complexity of the materials provided, the Court will consider applications to continue or recall witnesses. It is unnecessary, however, to order early disclosure at this time.\"); United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying analogous motion and noting that “[i]t has been the practice of this Court and of other courts in this district to require that the Government produce these materials a few days before the start of trial”). Because the Government has committed to providing the defense with Giglio material multiple weeks in advance of trial, which is ample time for the defense to prepare its cross-examination of the Government's witnesses, this motion should be denied.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "191",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003152",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Dec. 14, 2010",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "10 Cr. 87 (DAB)",
      "2010 WL 5174353",
      "338 F. Supp. 2d 460",
      "483 F. Supp. 2d 308",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003152"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}