Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 735.8 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 93.8%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 49 of 239 the defendant asks this Court to authorize an extensive and burdensome fishing expedition, premised on the defendant’s pure conjecture. The Court should deny the motion. Although the defendant asserts that the Court is obligated to conduct a hearing, she has failed to establish that any hearing is warranted. The defendant argues that courts conduct evidentiary hearings “where the existence or scope of a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement is in genuine dispute.” (Def. Mot. 1 at 29). But the defendant has not established any genuine factual dispute in this case that a hearing would be required to resolve. The defendant has offered bare conclusions in support of her motion, which are refuted by governing law, record evidence, and the four corners of the agreement itself. That is not a basis for a hearing. As the Second Circuit explained in United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002), “a district court need not conduct a hearing every time a defendant summarily accuses the government of failing to live up to an alleged bargain.” /d. at 91. In that case, the court held that a hearing was required because the defendant had submitted affidavits from his attorney, as well as corroborating affidavits from other attorneys, and the Government had not submitted any evidence. /d.; see also United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (applying Aleman, and ordering an evidentiary hearing based upon the defendant’s submission of an affidavit from an attorney with knowledge of the alleged oral agreement). Similarly, in United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held that a hearing was required based on the defendant’s uncontested assertions about specific representations made to him by a prosecutor. /d. at 184, 190. Here, by contrast, the defendant has offered no evidence in support of her allegations. The defendant cannot seriously argue that she has made the type of showing that requires a hearing. For example, she has not offered any affidavits from Epstein’s former defense attorneys 22 DOJ-OGR-00002983

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
File Size 735.8 KB
OCR Confidence 93.8%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,169 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 16:29:20.069676