mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022091.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "29",
    "document_number": "35",
    "date": "04/24/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 29 of 34\ndiscovered any potential Brady material. As such, given that the prosecution has already produced in discovery all of the materials it provided to the DOJ-OIG attorneys preparing the Report, the underlying materials for the Report would be merely cumulative of information in the defendants' possession. Any analysis of those materials by the attorneys preparing the Inspector General's Report is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 and cannot constitute Brady material. See United States v. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting generally that \"nothing contained in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable\").\nAt bottom, Thomas has not cited a single authority requiring the production of a draft, unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product, and such production is not required by Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, or any other disclosure obligation.\nE. Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim\nThomas seeks \"information and statistics that show the conduct in which the defendant is being charged with a crime were . . . rampant throughout the BOP\" and that the application of criminal laws to him is \"possibl[y] discriminatory.\" (Mot. 7.) This request, which is effectively a demand for discovery in furtherance of a selective prosecution claim, should be denied not only for the reasons set forth in Section II.B, but also because Thomas has not made the requisite showing that is necessary to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim. Indeed, Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or discriminatory purpose.\n1. Applicable Law\n\"A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.\" Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The standard to prove this defense is \"a demanding 24\nDOJ-OGR-00022091",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 29 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "discovered any potential Brady material. As such, given that the prosecution has already produced in discovery all of the materials it provided to the DOJ-OIG attorneys preparing the Report, the underlying materials for the Report would be merely cumulative of information in the defendants' possession. Any analysis of those materials by the attorneys preparing the Inspector General's Report is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 and cannot constitute Brady material. See United States v. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting generally that \"nothing contained in [an] OIG report would ordinarily have been discoverable\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At bottom, Thomas has not cited a single authority requiring the production of a draft, unpublished report by an inspector general or related work product, and such production is not required by Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, or any other disclosure obligation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "E. Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thomas seeks \"information and statistics that show the conduct in which the defendant is being charged with a crime were . . . rampant throughout the BOP\" and that the application of criminal laws to him is \"possibl[y] discriminatory.\" (Mot. 7.) This request, which is effectively a demand for discovery in furtherance of a selective prosecution claim, should be denied not only for the reasons set forth in Section II.B, but also because Thomas has not made the requisite showing that is necessary to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim. Indeed, Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that his prosecution was the result of discriminatory effect or discriminatory purpose.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.\" Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 468. The standard to prove this defense is \"a demanding 24",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022091",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Thomas"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ-OIG",
      "BOP"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/24/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022091"
    ]
  },
  "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 29 of 34."
}