mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003946.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "235",
    "date": "04/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 235 Filed 04/22/21 Page 4 of 10\nPage 4\nregarding the four victims in the S2 Indictment. As a result, the Government expects that trial on the non-perjury counts can be completed within approximately three to four weeks.1\nBecause the S2 Indictment was returned more than three months in advance of the July 12, 2021 trial date, the defense's reliance on United States v. Guzman, 754 F.2d 482, 486 (2d Cir. 1985) to support its request for an adjournment is entirely misplaced. In Guzman, the district court ordered the defendant to stand trial one day after the return of a superseding indictment that expanded the scope of the charged conspiracy by an additional two years. That is plainly not the case here, because the S2 Indictment was returned on March 29, 2021, more than three months before trial. Indeed, it is telling that the defense cites no case in which the Second Circuit has held that a district court lacks the discretion to conduct a trial three months after a superseding indictment has been filed. Any such decision would be surprising, given that the Speedy Trial Act expressly contemplates trial commencing \"within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.\" 18 U.S.C. §3161(c)(1). In other words, the defense has more than sufficient time to prepare for trial between the return of the S2 Indictment and July 12, 2021.\n1 The defense misleadingly suggested in its April 15, 2021 letter and again in its most recent letter that the Government has doubled its trial estimate from two to four weeks. (See Dkt. No. 202 at 7). As noted in its April 9, 2021 letter, however, the Government initially estimated that its case-in-chief would last approximately two weeks and suggested that the Court reserve three weeks in total for the trial, to include jury selection and the defense case. (See Dkt. No. 199 at 4). The Government has now added only one week to that prediction, estimating that its case-in-chief may last up to three weeks and proposing that the Court reserve four weeks in total for trial. Although this prediction includes an estimate of any anticipated cross-examination and defense case, the Government, of course, cannot be certain how long such defense presentations will take during trial. Moreover, given that the parties have consented to the use of jury questionnaires, the Government's hope is that their use will expedite jury selection in order to preserve as many days as possible for the trial beginning on July 12, 2021.\nDOJ-OGR-00003946",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 235 Filed 04/22/21 Page 4 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "regarding the four victims in the S2 Indictment. As a result, the Government expects that trial on the non-perjury counts can be completed within approximately three to four weeks.1\nBecause the S2 Indictment was returned more than three months in advance of the July 12, 2021 trial date, the defense's reliance on United States v. Guzman, 754 F.2d 482, 486 (2d Cir. 1985) to support its request for an adjournment is entirely misplaced. In Guzman, the district court ordered the defendant to stand trial one day after the return of a superseding indictment that expanded the scope of the charged conspiracy by an additional two years. That is plainly not the case here, because the S2 Indictment was returned on March 29, 2021, more than three months before trial. Indeed, it is telling that the defense cites no case in which the Second Circuit has held that a district court lacks the discretion to conduct a trial three months after a superseding indictment has been filed. Any such decision would be surprising, given that the Speedy Trial Act expressly contemplates trial commencing \"within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.\" 18 U.S.C. §3161(c)(1). In other words, the defense has more than sufficient time to prepare for trial between the return of the S2 Indictment and July 12, 2021.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The defense misleadingly suggested in its April 15, 2021 letter and again in its most recent letter that the Government has doubled its trial estimate from two to four weeks. (See Dkt. No. 202 at 7). As noted in its April 9, 2021 letter, however, the Government initially estimated that its case-in-chief would last approximately two weeks and suggested that the Court reserve three weeks in total for the trial, to include jury selection and the defense case. (See Dkt. No. 199 at 4). The Government has now added only one week to that prediction, estimating that its case-in-chief may last up to three weeks and proposing that the Court reserve four weeks in total for trial. Although this prediction includes an estimate of any anticipated cross-examination and defense case, the Government, of course, cannot be certain how long such defense presentations will take during trial. Moreover, given that the parties have consented to the use of jury questionnaires, the Government's hope is that their use will expedite jury selection in order to preserve as many days as possible for the trial beginning on July 12, 2021.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003946",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 12, 2021",
      "March 29, 2021",
      "April 15, 2021",
      "April 9, 2021",
      "04/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 235",
      "Dkt. No. 202",
      "Dkt. No. 199",
      "754 F.2d 482",
      "18 U.S.C. §3161(c)(1)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003946"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}