mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008401.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "549-1",
    "date": "12/17/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 24 19 LB1TMAX1\n\nthe other individual. Watson, 640 F.3d, 511-12.\n\nOther courts in this Circuit have described challenges to the thoroughness of the investigation as a \"common method of undermining a prosecution\" by, for example, cross-examining officers on which leads they followed and which they did not.\nSee, for example, Gray v. Ercole -- I don't have that full quote -- 2011 WL 5082868 (E.D.N.Y 2008). Or defense counsel may, on cross, examine investigating officers if they considered alternative suspects. United States v. Birbal, 92 CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 at *7, that's the District of Vermont, 1996. That was affirmed by the Second Circuit at 113 F.3d 1230. And I will quote here, \"The length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to\" the principle that the government's failure to use particular investigative techniques does not tend to show that the defendant is not guilty. See, for example, United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also, United States V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).\n\nThe other two cases the defense cites, neither of which is binding on the Court, don't suggest anything different than the law I just referred to. In Bowen v. Maynard, the 10th Circuit held that Brady evidence in the government's possession was material because it suggested that another likely suspect\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 24 19 LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the other individual. Watson, 640 F.3d, 511-12.\n\nOther courts in this Circuit have described challenges to the thoroughness of the investigation as a \"common method of undermining a prosecution\" by, for example, cross-examining officers on which leads they followed and which they did not.\nSee, for example, Gray v. Ercole -- I don't have that full quote -- 2011 WL 5082868 (E.D.N.Y 2008). Or defense counsel may, on cross, examine investigating officers if they considered alternative suspects. United States v. Birbal, 92 CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 at *7, that's the District of Vermont, 1996. That was affirmed by the Second Circuit at 113 F.3d 1230. And I will quote here, \"The length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to\" the principle that the government's failure to use particular investigative techniques does not tend to show that the defendant is not guilty. See, for example, United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also, United States V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).\n\nThe other two cases the defense cites, neither of which is binding on the Court, don't suggest anything different than the law I just referred to. In Bowen v. Maynard, the 10th Circuit held that Brady evidence in the government's possession was material because it suggested that another likely suspect",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Vermont",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21",
      "2008",
      "1996",
      "2019",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 549-1",
      "92 CR 98",
      "No. 18 CR 289"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal brief. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}