mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003058.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "124",
    "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 124 of 239\nelement which influences a criminal suspect to make incriminating admissions.\" Id. The question\nis not whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his \"free will,\" when he spoke,\n\"was overborne.\" Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir.\n2014).\n\nIt follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation,\nsee United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1987), much less his individual status\nin the investigation, see Washington, 431 U.S. at 189 & 190 n.6. The Constitution does not\n\"require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-\ninterest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.\" Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564,\n576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement\nthat law enforcement give information that might affect \"the wisdom\" of speaking). Nor does the\nConstitution require that someone be questioned only in the manner most likely to ensure that he\ngives the decision whether to speak careful thought. See, e.g., United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d\n149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) (\"the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices\" (internal\nquotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a\ndifference between \"those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those\nwhich are merely difficult\").\n\nIn short, the Fifth Amendment is only violated by \"government misconduct\" that is\n\"coercive.\" Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163 (1986); see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S.\n298, 312 (1985) (Fifth Amendment prohibits \"coercion\" effected \"by physical violence or other\ndeliberate means calculated to break the suspect's will\").\n\nii. The Fifth Amendment – Act of Production Privilege\n\nThe act of production privilege is a form of the Fifth Amendment privilege pertaining to\nthe production of materials. \"[A]n individual may claim an act of production privilege to decline",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 124 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "element which influences a criminal suspect to make incriminating admissions.\" Id. The question\nis not whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his \"free will,\" when he spoke,\n\"was overborne.\" Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir.\n2014).\n\nIt follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation,\nsee United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1987), much less his individual status\nin the investigation, see Washington, 431 U.S. at 189 & 190 n.6. The Constitution does not\n\"require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-\ninterest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.\" Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564,\n576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement\nthat law enforcement give information that might affect \"the wisdom\" of speaking). Nor does the\nConstitution require that someone be questioned only in the manner most likely to ensure that he\ngives the decision whether to speak careful thought. See, e.g., United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d\n149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) (\"the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices\" (internal\nquotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a\ndifference between \"those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those\nwhich are merely difficult\").",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In short, the Fifth Amendment is only violated by \"government misconduct\" that is\n\"coercive.\" Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163 (1986); see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S.\n298, 312 (1985) (Fifth Amendment prohibits \"coercion\" effected \"by physical violence or other\ndeliberate means calculated to break the suspect's will\").",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ii. The Fifth Amendment – Act of Production Privilege",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The act of production privilege is a form of the Fifth Amendment privilege pertaining to\nthe production of materials. \"[A]n individual may claim an act of production privilege to decline",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "97",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003058",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2014",
      "1987",
      "1987",
      "2011",
      "1976",
      "1986",
      "1985"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Page 124 of 239",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003058"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}