mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003101.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "167",
    "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 167 of 239\n\nin a bankruptcy proceeding). Similarly, \"[c]ourts have repeatedly recognized the appropriateness of trying perjury or obstruction charges together with the underlying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime.\" United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)).\n\nIn the event that properly joined counts \"appear[] to prejudice a defendant or the government,\" Rule 14(a) permits a court to \"order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). \"[I]n order to prevail\" on a Rule 14 motion, \"the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice.\" United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this \"heavy burden\" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a \"balance\" between \"considerations of economy and speed\" and \"possible unfairness\" to the defendant. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, \"the principles that guide the district court's consideration of a motion for severance usually counsel denial,\" Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at *5 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), and severance should be granted \"only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence,\" Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).52 But \"Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court's sound discretion.\" Id. at 538-39. \"[L]ess drastic measures . . . such as limiting instructions, court's sound discretion.\"\n\n52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015), aff'd, 730 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Page for the proposition that Zafiro applies both to motions to sever counts and motions to sever defendants).\n\n140\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003101",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 167 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "in a bankruptcy proceeding). Similarly, \"[c]ourts have repeatedly recognized the appropriateness of trying perjury or obstruction charges together with the underlying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime.\" United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the event that properly joined counts \"appear[] to prejudice a defendant or the government,\" Rule 14(a) permits a court to \"order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a). \"[I]n order to prevail\" on a Rule 14 motion, \"the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice.\" United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this \"heavy burden\" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a \"balance\" between \"considerations of economy and speed\" and \"possible unfairness\" to the defendant. United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, \"the principles that guide the district court's consideration of a motion for severance usually counsel denial,\" Pizarro, 2018 WL 1737236, at *5 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), and severance should be granted \"only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence,\" Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).52 But \"Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court's sound discretion.\" Id. at 538-39. \"[L]ess drastic measures . . . such as limiting instructions, court's sound discretion.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168, at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015), aff'd, 730 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Page for the proposition that Zafiro applies both to motions to sever counts and motions to sever defendants).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "140",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003101",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lynch, J.",
      "Werner",
      "Pizarro",
      "Zafiro",
      "Gracesqui",
      "Page"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Oct. 7, 2004",
      "Sept. 8, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "No. 04 Cr. 340",
      "No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003101"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}