mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011301.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "713",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 4\ntheory of Bovino's relevance since mid-October, when the Government produced its 3500 material. Yet the defendant did not subpoena Bovino until November 30, 2021. And as the defendant admits, she has not been in contact with Bovino since the service of the subpoena, two and a half weeks ago.\nThe Government rested on Friday, November 10, 2021, as it had previewed for several days prior. Following that time, the defendant had five days without trial during which to prepare the defense case-in-chief. On the day the Government rested, the defendant suggested that the defense case would last only a few days, and as recently as yesterday, the defendant suggested that she would rest today, but for one witness who might carry over to Monday. Tr. 2534.\nIt was not until this morning that the defendant brought Bovino's apparent noncompliance to the Court's attention. It also appears that the defense would otherwise rest today. The defendant has slept on her rights, and the Court should not sign the arrest warrant or grant a continuance to allow the Marshals time to find Bovino and bring her to Court.\nIt is well settled that a \"district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to continue.\" See United States v. Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021). That principle applies with full force where a defendant belatedly seeks to compel a witness to attend trial. In United States v. King, 762 F.2d 232, 235 (2d Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Khatami, 280 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2002), the Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to continue so that an incarcerated witness could be produced. The defendant waited until two days before trial to seek production of the witness, and the Circuit ruled that \"any detriment suffered by [the defendant] resulted from his own dilatory conduct and not from the court's ruling.\" Id. at 235. \"Such tactics provide no basis for a ruling\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00011301",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "theory of Bovino's relevance since mid-October, when the Government produced its 3500 material. Yet the defendant did not subpoena Bovino until November 30, 2021. And as the defendant admits, she has not been in contact with Bovino since the service of the subpoena, two and a half weeks ago.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government rested on Friday, November 10, 2021, as it had previewed for several days prior. Following that time, the defendant had five days without trial during which to prepare the defense case-in-chief. On the day the Government rested, the defendant suggested that the defense case would last only a few days, and as recently as yesterday, the defendant suggested that she would rest today, but for one witness who might carry over to Monday. Tr. 2534.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It was not until this morning that the defendant brought Bovino's apparent noncompliance to the Court's attention. It also appears that the defense would otherwise rest today. The defendant has slept on her rights, and the Court should not sign the arrest warrant or grant a continuance to allow the Marshals time to find Bovino and bring her to Court.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is well settled that a \"district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to continue.\" See United States v. Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021). That principle applies with full force where a defendant belatedly seeks to compel a witness to attend trial. In United States v. King, 762 F.2d 232, 235 (2d Cir. 1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Khatami, 280 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2002), the Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a motion to continue so that an incarcerated witness could be produced. The defendant waited until two days before trial to seek production of the witness, and the Circuit ruled that \"any detriment suffered by [the defendant] resulted from his own dilatory conduct and not from the court's ruling.\" Id. at 235. \"Such tactics provide no basis for a ruling",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011301",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Bovino",
      "Hamlett",
      "King",
      "Khatami"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "Marshals",
      "Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "mid-October",
      "November 30, 2021",
      "November 10, 2021",
      "07/12/22",
      "Nov. 3, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 713",
      "3500 material",
      "Tr. 2534",
      "762 F.2d 232",
      "280 F.3d 907",
      "2021 WL 5105861"
    ]
  },
  "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 2 of 4."
}