mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003004.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "70 of 239",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 70 of 239 Ricco, 549 F.2d 264, 272 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is so heavy that it is rarely met by a defendant. See DeMichele v. Greenburgh Centr. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-91 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[W]hile the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar.”). Substantial prejudice is just that—substantial, actual, non-speculative prejudice. See United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) (a defendant’s “proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative”); see also United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 2003) (prejudice sufficient to warrant dismissal for pre-indictment delay must be “actual and substantial” and “specific, concrete, and supported by evidence”). Prejudice in this context refers to “actual prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979). The mere loss of witnesses or evidence, without more, is insufficient. Claims of loss of memory resulting from the passage of time have been held to be insufficient to warrant dismissal of an indictment on due process grounds. See United States v. Wright, 343 F.3d 849, 860 (6th Cir. 2003); Henderson, 337 F.3d at 919-20. Moreover, even when a claim of prejudice is based upon the complete loss of a witness’s testimony or other evidence, a defendant nevertheless must show how that testimony or evidence would have affected the outcome or otherwise have assisted the case. See United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendant’s pre-indictment delay claim rejected due to failure to show “how the testimony from [three absent] witnesses would have benefitted his case”); United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness’ testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-examination, and that the jury 43 DOJ-OGR-00003004",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 70 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ricco, 549 F.2d 264, 272 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is so heavy that it is rarely met by a defendant. See DeMichele v. Greenburgh Centr. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-91 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[W]hile the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar.”).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Substantial prejudice is just that—substantial, actual, non-speculative prejudice. See United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) (a defendant’s “proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative”); see also United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 2003) (prejudice sufficient to warrant dismissal for pre-indictment delay must be “actual and substantial” and “specific, concrete, and supported by evidence”). Prejudice in this context refers to “actual prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The mere loss of witnesses or evidence, without more, is insufficient. Claims of loss of memory resulting from the passage of time have been held to be insufficient to warrant dismissal of an indictment on due process grounds. See United States v. Wright, 343 F.3d 849, 860 (6th Cir. 2003); Henderson, 337 F.3d at 919-20. Moreover, even when a claim of prejudice is based upon the complete loss of a witness’s testimony or other evidence, a defendant nevertheless must show how that testimony or evidence would have affected the outcome or otherwise have assisted the case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendant’s pre-indictment delay claim rejected due to failure to show “how the testimony from [three absent] witnesses would have benefitted his case”); United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness’ testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-examination, and that the jury",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "43",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003004",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1977",
      "1999",
      "1982",
      "2003",
      "1979",
      "2001"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003004"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the concept of substantial prejudice in the context of pre-indictment delay. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}