mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020789.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page171 of 208\nA-167\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 34\nreason to doubt these representations given its expansive approach to document production thus far in this case. The Government has agreed in its recent letter to produce Giglio material six weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall negotiate the specific timing, but assuming a schedule along those lines is met, the Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively prepare for trial. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 144.\nB. Jencks Act material and co-conspirator statements\nMaxwell also seeks to expedite discovery of Jencks Act material and non-exculpatory statements of co-conspirators that the government may offer at trial. The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, \"provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination.\" Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. The statute therefore prohibits a district court in most cases from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements unless those statements are exculpatory. \"A coconspirator who testifies on behalf of the government is a witness under the Act.\" In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d Cir. 1987). The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures. In any case, the Government has agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six weeks in advance of trial.\nThe Court also rejects Maxwell's alternative request for a hearing to determine the admissibility of co-conspirator declarations. Co-conspirator statements may often be admitted at trial on a conditional basis. If the Court determines that the Government has not met its burden to show that the conditionally admitted statements were made in furtherance of the charged conspiracy, the Court should provide a limiting instruction or, in extreme cases declare a mistrial. United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Although conditional admissions can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government\n30\nDOJ-OGR-00020789",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page171 of 208",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-167",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "reason to doubt these representations given its expansive approach to document production thus far in this case. The Government has agreed in its recent letter to produce Giglio material six weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall negotiate the specific timing, but assuming a schedule along those lines is met, the Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively prepare for trial. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 144.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Jencks Act material and co-conspirator statements",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell also seeks to expedite discovery of Jencks Act material and non-exculpatory statements of co-conspirators that the government may offer at trial. The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, \"provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination.\" Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. The statute therefore prohibits a district court in most cases from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements unless those statements are exculpatory. \"A coconspirator who testifies on behalf of the government is a witness under the Act.\" In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d Cir. 1987). The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures. In any case, the Government has agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six weeks in advance of trial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court also rejects Maxwell's alternative request for a hearing to determine the admissibility of co-conspirator declarations. Co-conspirator statements may often be admitted at trial on a conditional basis. If the Court determines that the Government has not met its burden to show that the conditionally admitted statements were made in furtherance of the charged conspiracy, the Court should provide a limiting instruction or, in extreme cases declare a mistrial. United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Although conditional admissions can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020789",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 57",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 207",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3500",
      "267 F.3d at 144",
      "267 F.3d at 145",
      "834 F.2d 283",
      "286 (2d Cir. 1987)",
      "12 F.3d 1186",
      "1199 (2d Cir. 1993)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 30 of 34."
}