mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022040.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "33",
    "date": "04/09/20",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 33 Filed 04/09/20 Page 17 of 38\n\nfar-reaching nature, including documents related to a revenge issue as to Valerie Plame, and her late husband, Ambassador Wilson. The Court in Libby ruled in favor for the defense and granted the motion to compel discovery in several key areas of the case.\n\nThis Court will find Libby, supra, important because the Court's decision in that case focused on \"all agencies\" that have information regarding the offenses charged. In the instant matter, therefore, it will not be enough for the government to state that other agencies may not be allied with the prosecution, or that the government lacks access to the documents. If the documents provide exculpatory evidence, and are related to the issues in the indictment, they must be produced.\n\nIn Marshall, 132 F.3d at 63, the defendant was charged in a drug related transaction. There were records on visitation from the local jail where the defendant was incarcerated, pager records, the pager, and local records from the county public records about a traffic stop. These items were uncovered by the government agents investigating the matter, but only after discovery had been concluded. During the course of the trial, the Court took a four-day adjournment, in order to address the newly discovered evidence. The trial judge decided to exclude all of the newly discovered evidence, and, as a result, Marshall was found guilty. On appeal, the government argued that, in fact, the newly discovered evidence, under Rule 16, tended to incriminate, not exculpate Marshall. On appeal, the Court disagreed, citing Rule 16(a)(1)(C) as requiring the production of items that are material to the preparation of the defendant's case. The Court, in addition, rejected the government's argument, that the items must be 'materially exculpatory,' Id. at 68. In announcing the rule, that Court stated: \"In United States v. Lloyd, we said that evidence is material under Rule 16 'as long as there is a strong indication that it will play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.\" See Lloyd at 351.\n\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00022040",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 33 Filed 04/09/20 Page 17 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "far-reaching nature, including documents related to a revenge issue as to Valerie Plame, and her late husband, Ambassador Wilson. The Court in Libby ruled in favor for the defense and granted the motion to compel discovery in several key areas of the case.\n\nThis Court will find Libby, supra, important because the Court's decision in that case focused on \"all agencies\" that have information regarding the offenses charged. In the instant matter, therefore, it will not be enough for the government to state that other agencies may not be allied with the prosecution, or that the government lacks access to the documents. If the documents provide exculpatory evidence, and are related to the issues in the indictment, they must be produced.\n\nIn Marshall, 132 F.3d at 63, the defendant was charged in a drug related transaction. There were records on visitation from the local jail where the defendant was incarcerated, pager records, the pager, and local records from the county public records about a traffic stop. These items were uncovered by the government agents investigating the matter, but only after discovery had been concluded. During the course of the trial, the Court took a four-day adjournment, in order to address the newly discovered evidence. The trial judge decided to exclude all of the newly discovered evidence, and, as a result, Marshall was found guilty. On appeal, the government argued that, in fact, the newly discovered evidence, under Rule 16, tended to incriminate, not exculpate Marshall. On appeal, the Court disagreed, citing Rule 16(a)(1)(C) as requiring the production of items that are material to the preparation of the defendant's case. The Court, in addition, rejected the government's argument, that the items must be 'materially exculpatory,' Id. at 68. In announcing the rule, that Court stated: \"In United States v. Lloyd, we said that evidence is material under Rule 16 'as long as there is a strong indication that it will play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.\" See Lloyd at 351.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022040",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Valerie Plame",
      "Ambassador Wilson",
      "Marshall",
      "Lloyd"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/09/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 33",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022040"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is page 17 of 38."
}