epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010127.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "522",
    "date": "04/06/12",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 29\n\nseparate question of whether the motion for a new trial based on the conduct of juror Conrad is meritorious. That is not a question of legal ethics.\n\n3. In summary, my opinion is that (i) the Brune & Richard lawyers had no ethical obligation to disclose the results of their March 2011 research in March, or the results of their March and May 2011 research in May; (ii) the Brune & Richard lawyers had no ethical obligation to disclose the existence or the results of their March and May research in their July 8 motion for a new trial or during the July 15 conference call with the Court; and (iii) nothing the Brune & Richard lawyers said or did in the July 8 memorandum or the July 15 conference call violated their ethical obligations.\n\nFactual Assumptions\n\n4. I have read the following documents:\n\n--Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government dated May 25, 2011;\n\n--Defendants' Brief in Support of a New Trial dated July 8, 2011;\n\n--Transcript of Telephone Conference with Court dated July 15, 2011;\n\n--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 21, 2011;\n\n--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 29, 2011;\n\n--Affidavit of Susan Brune with Exhibits (including Catherine Conrad's jury questionnaire and voir dire responses) dated September 15, 2011;\n\n--Government's Waiver Brief dated October 7, 2011;\n\n--Defendant Parse's Waiver Brief dated October 27, 2011; and\n\n--Transcript of Hearing dated February 15 and 16, 2012.\n\n5. My opinion is based on the cited documents and I assume as true the facts that emerge from the sworn testimony at the hearing held February 15 and 16, 2012. I note that the testimony at that hearing was subject to robust adverse direct examination by Government attorneys.\n\nGeneral Observations And Legal Standards\n\n6. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct (hereafter \"New York Rules\") specifically identify when a lawyer is obligated to disclose information to the Court. The New York Rules are incorporated in the local rules of this Court. See Southern District of New York Local Rule 1.5(b)(5).\n\n7. Relevant here is New York Rule 3.3(a) and (b), which provides:\n\n(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "separate question of whether the motion for a new trial based on the conduct of juror Conrad is meritorious. That is not a question of legal ethics.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. In summary, my opinion is that (i) the Brune & Richard lawyers had no ethical obligation to disclose the results of their March 2011 research in March, or the results of their March and May 2011 research in May; (ii) the Brune & Richard lawyers had no ethical obligation to disclose the existence or the results of their March and May research in their July 8 motion for a new trial or during the July 15 conference call with the Court; and (iii) nothing the Brune & Richard lawyers said or did in the July 8 memorandum or the July 15 conference call violated their ethical obligations.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Factual Assumptions",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. I have read the following documents:\n\n--Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government dated May 25, 2011;\n\n--Defendants' Brief in Support of a New Trial dated July 8, 2011;\n\n--Transcript of Telephone Conference with Court dated July 15, 2011;\n\n--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 21, 2011;\n\n--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 29, 2011;\n\n--Affidavit of Susan Brune with Exhibits (including Catherine Conrad's jury questionnaire and voir dire responses) dated September 15, 2011;\n\n--Government's Waiver Brief dated October 7, 2011;\n\n--Defendant Parse's Waiver Brief dated October 27, 2011; and\n\n--Transcript of Hearing dated February 15 and 16, 2012.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. My opinion is based on the cited documents and I assume as true the facts that emerge from the sworn testimony at the hearing held February 15 and 16, 2012. I note that the testimony at that hearing was subject to robust adverse direct examination by Government attorneys.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "General Observations And Legal Standards",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct (hereafter \"New York Rules\") specifically identify when a lawyer is obligated to disclose information to the Court. The New York Rules are incorporated in the local rules of this Court. See Southern District of New York Local Rule 1.5(b)(5).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7. Relevant here is New York Rule 3.3(a) and (b), which provides:\n\n(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010127",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Susan Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Brune & Richard",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 2011",
      "May 2011",
      "July 8, 2011",
      "July 15, 2011",
      "July 21, 2011",
      "July 29, 2011",
      "September 15, 2011",
      "October 7, 2011",
      "October 27, 2011",
      "February 15, 2012",
      "February 16, 2012",
      "April 6, 2012",
      "May 25, 2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:09-cr-00581-WHP",
      "Document 522",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010127"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a legal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}