DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
641 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
2
Organizations
4
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
641 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Williams |
Party in the court case Williams v. New York.
|
|
| Croxford |
Party in the court case United States v. Croxford.
|
|
| Fennel |
Party in the court case United States v. Fennel.
|
|
| Cofield |
Party in the court case United States v. Cofield.
|
|
| Shine |
Party in the court case United States v. Shine.
|
|
| Juwa |
Party in the court case United States v. Juwa.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as the subject whose 'background, character, and conduct' is being considered.
|
|
| Sarah |
Mentioned as possessing crucial information about Maxwell.
|
|
| Elizabeth |
Mentioned as possessing crucial information about Maxwell.
|
|
| Morrison |
Party in the court case United States v. Morrison.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several court cases cited (e.g., United States v. Croxford).
|
| The Second Circuit | court |
Cited as having recognized the broad scope of a legal provision.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The document discusses the broad scope of information that can be considered by a court at sentencing.
federal courts
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location related to the case Williams v. New York.
|
|
|
District court mentioned in the citation for United States v. Croxford.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Cofield.
|
|
|
Western District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Shine.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that Sarah possessed 'crucial information' about Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct'.
Key Quotes (4)
"the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics."Source
— Williams v. New York
(Quoted to explain what judges need to determine an 'appropriate sentence'.)
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
Quote #1
"some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation."Source
— United States v. Shine
(Describing the standard for information relied on post-conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
Quote #2
"no limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence"Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3661
(Quoted as a broad federal provision confirming the expansive power of federal courts at sentencing.)
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
Quote #3
"no limitation"Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3661
(Identified as the critical words from the statute that grant broad discretionary authority to a sentencing court.)
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,947 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 675 Filed 06/25/22 Page 9 of 21
[at sentencing] broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may
consider, or the source from which it may come come."); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247
(explaining that in order to determine an “appropriate sentence” judges need “the fullest information
possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.”). The Federal Rules of Evidence do not
limit the evidence that the court can consider at sentencing. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3); United
States v. Croxford, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1240 (D. Utah 2004); United States v. Fennel, 65 F.3d 812,
813 (10th Cir. 1995). See also United States v. Cofield, No. 17-CR-610, 2019 WL 4879331, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019). The information relied on post-conviction must only have “some minimal
indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.” United States v. Shine, No. 17-CR-28-FPG-JJM,
2020 WL 32937, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020) quoting United States v. Juwa, 508 F.3d 694, 701
(2d Cir. 2007).
consider, or the source from which it may come come."); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247
(explaining that in order to determine an “appropriate sentence” judges need “the fullest information
possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.”). The Federal Rules of Evidence do not
limit the evidence that the court can consider at sentencing. See Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3); United
States v. Croxford, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1240 (D. Utah 2004); United States v. Fennel, 65 F.3d 812,
813 (10th Cir. 1995). See also United States v. Cofield, No. 17-CR-610, 2019 WL 4879331, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019). The information relied on post-conviction must only have “some minimal
indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.” United States v. Shine, No. 17-CR-28-FPG-JJM,
2020 WL 32937, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020) quoting United States v. Juwa, 508 F.3d 694, 701
(2d Cir. 2007).
Of particular importance in confirming the expansive power of federal courts at sentencing is
a broad federal provision—18 U.S.C. § 3661—which establishes that “no limitation shall be placed
on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an
offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an
appropriate sentence” (emphasis added). The critical words, “no limitation,” grant a sentencing court
extremely broad discretionary authority to consider wide-ranging unlimited information about
Maxwell’s “background, character, and conduct”—crucial information clearly possessed by Sarah and
Elizabeth.
a broad federal provision—18 U.S.C. § 3661—which establishes that “no limitation shall be placed
on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an
offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an
appropriate sentence” (emphasis added). The critical words, “no limitation,” grant a sentencing court
extremely broad discretionary authority to consider wide-ranging unlimited information about
Maxwell’s “background, character, and conduct”—crucial information clearly possessed by Sarah and
Elizabeth.
The Second Circuit has recognized the broad scope of this provision. In United States v.
Morrison, 778 F.3d 396, 400–01 (2d Cir. 2015), the Second Circuit noted that section 3661
Morrison, 778 F.3d 396, 400–01 (2d Cir. 2015), the Second Circuit noted that section 3661
9
DOJ-OGR-00010700
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document