mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009481.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "63",
    "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616620 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": null,
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616620 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117 A-5905 3\n\nCAC3PARC\n1 have that discussion.\n2 The first question obviously is was the performance\n3 deficient here. And that I think turns on the question of did\n4 the Brune firm make a strategic judgment on that fateful\n5 May 12, 2011 day, maybe even earlier during the voir dire\n6 itself. And I'm not sure there is a great definition of\n7 strategic judgment, but there is very good language in Justice\n8 Stevens' dissent, but I don't think the majority disagreed with\n9 it, that talks about a conscious choice between two\n10 alternatives borne of deliberation not happenstance,\n11 inattention or neglect.\n12 The Second Circuit has told us that it is not a\n13 strategic judgment when what is going on is oversight or\n14 carelessness or ineptitude.\n15 I like to think about this as strategic judgments are\n16 situations where lawyers say, one of two courses could have\n17 answered my client's interests. I choose A after some thought.\n18 It may be that B is the wiser course. But we retry a lot of\n19 cases if we second guess lawyers in that situation and\n20 obviously the Supreme Court says we shouldn't.\n21 I say in our papers that if what went on here was one\n22 of two things. If the Brune firm in that plaza conversation\n23 said the equivalent of let's sandbag the Court, let's go\n24 forward. We know this information and we get a free bite at\n25 the apple. It's hard to think that's not a strategic decision,\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009481",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616620 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "A-5905",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3\n\nCAC3PARC\n1 have that discussion.\n2 The first question obviously is was the performance\n3 deficient here. And that I think turns on the question of did\n4 the Brune firm make a strategic judgment on that fateful\n5 May 12, 2011 day, maybe even earlier during the voir dire\n6 itself. And I'm not sure there is a great definition of\n7 strategic judgment, but there is very good language in Justice\n8 Stevens' dissent, but I don't think the majority disagreed with\n9 it, that talks about a conscious choice between two\n10 alternatives borne of deliberation not happenstance,\n11 inattention or neglect.\n12 The Second Circuit has told us that it is not a\n13 strategic judgment when what is going on is oversight or\n14 carelessness or ineptitude.\n15 I like to think about this as strategic judgments are\n16 situations where lawyers say, one of two courses could have\n17 answered my client's interests. I choose A after some thought.\n18 It may be that B is the wiser course. But we retry a lot of\n19 cases if we second guess lawyers in that situation and\n20 obviously the Supreme Court says we shouldn't.\n21 I say in our papers that if what went on here was one\n22 of two things. If the Brune firm in that plaza conversation\n23 said the equivalent of let's sandbag the Court, let's go\n24 forward. We know this information and we get a free bite at\n25 the apple. It's hard to think that's not a strategic decision,",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009481",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Stevens"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Brune firm",
      "Supreme Court",
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "May 12, 2011",
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00338-PAE",
      "1616620",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009481"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly printed, with a handwritten 'A-5905' at the top. The document contains a discussion about strategic judgments in a legal context."
}