mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022096.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34 of 34",
    "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 34 of 34\n\nHaving failed to meet the \"rigorous standard\" required to obtain discovery on a selective prosecution defense, Thomas's requests for discovery of any materials related to other incidents in which officers were not prosecuted for falsifying count slips should be denied. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to compel should be denied.\n\nDated: New York, New York\nApril 24, 2020\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nGEOFFREY S. BERMAN\nUnited States Attorney\n\nBy: s/\nRebekah Donaleski\nJessica Lonergan\nNicolas Roos\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n\nfrom a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues in a criminal trial\"). Accordingly, courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising these arguments at trial. See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082 (\"[W]e agree with the district court's decision to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject.\"); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt. 622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government's prosecution), United States v. Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting motion to preclude the defendant from \"presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the jury to question the Government's motives in investigating and indicting\" the defendant); United States v. Larkin, No. 12-CR-319, 2017 WL 928915, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017) (\"Defendant will be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government's motive for prosecution in the instant case as such evidence is not relevant.\"); United States v. Starks, No. 10-CR-0160, 2012 WL 12878587, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 20, 2012) (same).\n\n29\n\nDOJ-OGR-00022096",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 34 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Having failed to meet the \"rigorous standard\" required to obtain discovery on a selective prosecution defense, Thomas's requests for discovery of any materials related to other incidents in which officers were not prosecuted for falsifying count slips should be denied. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to compel should be denied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: New York, New York\nApril 24, 2020\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nGEOFFREY S. BERMAN\nUnited States Attorney\n\nBy: s/\nRebekah Donaleski\nJessica Lonergan\nNicolas Roos\nAssistant United States Attorneys",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "from a determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate issues in a criminal trial\"). Accordingly, courts routinely and correctly preclude defendants from raising these arguments at trial. See Regan, 103 F.3d at 1082 (\"[W]e agree with the district court's decision to resolve for itself whether the government's conduct was lawful and to prevent Regan from presenting evidence on that subject.\"); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG), Dkt. 622 (precluding argument regarding propriety of Government's prosecution), United States v. Stewart, Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC), 2004 WL 113506, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2004) (granting motion to preclude the defendant from \"presenting arguments or evidence that would invite the jury to question the Government's motives in investigating and indicting\" the defendant); United States v. Larkin, No. 12-CR-319, 2017 WL 928915, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2017) (\"Defendant will be precluded from presenting evidence regarding the government's motive for prosecution in the instant case as such evidence is not relevant.\"); United States v. Starks, No. 10-CR-0160, 2012 WL 12878587, at *1 (N.D. Miss. July 20, 2012) (same).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022096",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Thomas",
      "Armstrong",
      "GEOFFREY S. BERMAN",
      "Rebekah Donaleski",
      "Jessica Lonergan",
      "Nicolas Roos",
      "Regan",
      "Raniere",
      "Stewart",
      "Larkin",
      "Starks"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 24, 2020",
      "Jan. 26, 2004",
      "Mar. 8, 2017",
      "July 20, 2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "18 Cr. 204 (NGG)",
      "Cr. No. 03-717 (MGC)",
      "No. 12-CR-319",
      "No. 10-CR-0160"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}