mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004261.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "291",
    "date": "05/21/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 11 of 13\nPage 11\nconspirator statements when they are not produced until after the in limine deadline has passed.\nDistrict judges in this Circuit routinely order the government to disclose the identities of alleged co-conspirators in advance of trial to offset the \"risk of surprise to the defendant,\" especially if \"there are a large number of co-conspirators and a long-running conspiracy.\" See, e.g., United States v. Akhavan, S3 20-cr-188 (JSR), 2020 WL 2555333 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2020).5 In Akhavan, involving only a three-year conspiracy, Judge Rakoff determined the \"complex series of events over a number of years\" warranted a bill of particulars disclosing the names of the alleged co-conspirators. See also United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 666 (2d Cir. 1998). Unlike Akhavan, here the government has made no showing that disclosure of the names of unindicted co-conspirators would jeopardize its ongoing investigation into events that happened a quarter of a century ago.\nThe defense anticipates interposing significant objections to introduction of any purported co-conspirator statements (whether through witness testimony or documentary evidence) at trial and needs to litigate their admissibility before trial. Given that motions in limine need to be fully briefed at least four weeks before trial, we request that the government identify any co-conspirator's names and statements (whether via witness testimony or\n5 See also United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F.Supp.3d 287, 301-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (government made no showing of risk to continued investigation, ordering disclosure of identity of any unindicted co-conspirator); United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"conspiracies alleged here were quite long-running (nearly ten years, and allegedly ongoing) and involved a large number of co-conspirators (at least 20 individuals)....We are sympathetic, therefore, with the magnitude of defense counsel's burden in trying to decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators. A bill of particulars revealing the names of all persons whom the Government will claim at trial were unindicted co-conspirators might, therefore, be necessary to prevent prejudicial surprise at trial.\").\nDOJ-OGR-00004261",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 11 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "conspirator statements when they are not produced until after the in limine deadline has passed.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "District judges in this Circuit routinely order the government to disclose the identities of alleged co-conspirators in advance of trial to offset the \"risk of surprise to the defendant,\" especially if \"there are a large number of co-conspirators and a long-running conspiracy.\" See, e.g., United States v. Akhavan, S3 20-cr-188 (JSR), 2020 WL 2555333 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2020).5 In Akhavan, involving only a three-year conspiracy, Judge Rakoff determined the \"complex series of events over a number of years\" warranted a bill of particulars disclosing the names of the alleged co-conspirators. See also United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 666 (2d Cir. 1998). Unlike Akhavan, here the government has made no showing that disclosure of the names of unindicted co-conspirators would jeopardize its ongoing investigation into events that happened a quarter of a century ago.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense anticipates interposing significant objections to introduction of any purported co-conspirator statements (whether through witness testimony or documentary evidence) at trial and needs to litigate their admissibility before trial. Given that motions in limine need to be fully briefed at least four weeks before trial, we request that the government identify any co-conspirator's names and statements (whether via witness testimony or",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 See also United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F.Supp.3d 287, 301-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (government made no showing of risk to continued investigation, ordering disclosure of identity of any unindicted co-conspirator); United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"conspiracies alleged here were quite long-running (nearly ten years, and allegedly ongoing) and involved a large number of co-conspirators (at least 20 individuals)....We are sympathetic, therefore, with the magnitude of defense counsel's burden in trying to decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators. A bill of particulars revealing the names of all persons whom the Government will claim at trial were unindicted co-conspirators might, therefore, be necessary to prevent prejudicial surprise at trial.\").",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004261",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Rakoff"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "U.S."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 24, 2020",
      "05/21/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 291",
      "S3 20-cr-188 (JSR)",
      "2020 WL 2555333",
      "158 F.3d 662",
      "352 F.Supp.3d 287",
      "92 F. Supp. 2d 225",
      "552 F.3d 93",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004261"
    ]
  },
  "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 page 11 of a 13-page document."
}