Event Details

This legal document, filed on April 24, 2020, is a discussion from the prosecution arguing against the defense strategy of a defendant named Thomas. The prosecution contends that Thomas's plan to argue for acquittal based on being overworked and understaffed at the MCC, with rampant falsification of records within the BOP, is not a valid legal defense. The document cites case law (United States v. Carr) to support the argument that such excuses do not negate the elements of the crime and that allowing this defense would encourage jury nullification.

This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 35) from case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It contains the Government's legal argument opposing discovery requests made by the defendant, Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein jail case). The Government argues that Thomas's requests are irrelevant to the charges and are instead an attempt to 'garner sympathy' and argue 'jury nullification,' citing various legal precedents to support the exclusion of such evidence.

This page is from a legal filing (Document 35, filed 04/24/20) in the case against Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein case). The prosecution argues that Thomas is not entitled to draft OIG reports under Rule 16 or Brady obligations. Furthermore, the text argues Thomas has failed to meet the burden of proof required to demand discovery to support a 'selective prosecution' claim, specifically failing to prove discriminatory intent or effect regarding his charges relative to rampant conduct within the Bureau of Prisons.

This document is page 33 of a court filing (Document 35) from April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Tova Noel and Michael Thomas). The Government argues against defendant Thomas's motion for discovery regarding a 'selective prosecution' claim. The text asserts that Thomas failed to provide evidence of discriminatory purpose or bad faith by the Government, rejecting his defense that similar misconduct is 'rampant' within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Footnote 8 clarifies that selective prosecution is an issue for the judge, not the jury, as it does not relate to factual innocence.