mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002367.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 23",
    "document_number": "134",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 23\n\n4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression.\nIncident to its inherent power to superintend proceedings, this Court has the authority to suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation. See, e.g., United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"The court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar . . . [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law.\" (citation omitted)); United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings . . . .\"); Benkovitch v. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) (\"District courts have 'inherent authority' to impose a variety of sanctions, including . . . suppression of evidence . . . .\").\nIt does not matter that the government made its misrepresentations to [REDACTED] and not directly to this Court. \"As long as a party receives an appropriate hearing, . . . the party may be sanctioned for abuses of process occurring beyond the courtroom . . . .\" Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32, 57 (1991). \"Courts have held that inherent authority sanctions may be imposed for misconduct in another court where the misconduct is . . . in some way related to the case before the sanctioning court.\" Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260, at *6 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) (citation and alteration omitted); Manhattan Review LLC v. Yun, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317, *7 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) (\"The inherent power . . . can punish conduct before a different court if it is intimately related to the relevant case.\" (citing Klein, 2017 WL 2834260, at *4)). Here, the government's misrepresentation to [REDACTED] was not simply \"related\" to Counts Five and Six; only by the government's deception was it able to obtain the factual predicate for those counts. Accordingly, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to suppress that evidence. And it should.\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00002367",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Incident to its inherent power to superintend proceedings, this Court has the authority to suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation. See, e.g., United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"The court has inherent authority to regulate the administration of criminal justice among the parties before the bar . . . [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law.\" (citation omitted)); United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) (\"It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings . . . .\"); Benkovitch v. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) (\"District courts have 'inherent authority' to impose a variety of sanctions, including . . . suppression of evidence . . . .\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It does not matter that the government made its misrepresentations to [REDACTED] and not directly to this Court. \"As long as a party receives an appropriate hearing, . . . the party may be sanctioned for abuses of process occurring beyond the courtroom . . . .\" Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32, 57 (1991). \"Courts have held that inherent authority sanctions may be imposed for misconduct in another court where the misconduct is . . . in some way related to the case before the sanctioning court.\" Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260, at *6 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) (citation and alteration omitted); Manhattan Review LLC v. Yun, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317, *7 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) (\"The inherent power . . . can punish conduct before a different court if it is intimately related to the relevant case.\" (citing Klein, 2017 WL 2834260, at *4)). Here, the government's misrepresentation to [REDACTED] was not simply \"related\" to Counts Five and Six; only by the government's deception was it able to obtain the factual predicate for those counts. Accordingly, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to suppress that evidence. And it should.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002367",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "NASCO, Inc.",
      "Gorilla, Inc.",
      "Manhattan Review LLC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "D.N.J.",
      "E.D. Pa.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "Sept. 12, 2017",
      "June 30, 2017",
      "Sept. 21, 2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "134",
      "630 F.3d 1207",
      "897 F.3d 368",
      "510 U.S. 32",
      "2:15-cv-7806 (WJM)",
      "2017 WL 4005452",
      "Civ. No. 08-3798",
      "2017 WL 2834260",
      "16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF)",
      "2017 WL 11455317"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions."
}