{"id":"court_sdny_260_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":260,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"Document 260 04/04/24 P","summary_zh":"辩方信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #260（2024年4月4日提交）。共同被告 Yanping Wang（王燕平）代理律师（Baker Botts 事务所 Brendan F. Quigley）致函主审法官 Analisa Torres，回应政府方3月31日来函，要求法院为政府完成 Rule 16 证据开示设定截止日期、责令政府将开示材料径送布鲁克林 MDC 看守所并由看守所及时转交被告本人，并限制政府将材料标记为「仅限律师查阅」（AEO）的范围。","summary_en":"Defense letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #260 (filed April 4, 2024). Counsel for co-defendant Yanping Wang (Brendan F. Quigley of Baker Botts LLP) writes to Judge Analisa Torres responding to the government's March 31 letter, asking the court to set a deadline for the government to complete Rule 16 discovery, order hand-delivery of discovery productions to MDC Brooklyn with prompt transmittal to Wang, and restrict the government's use of \"Attorneys' Eyes Only\" designations on discovery materials.","body_en":"Document 260\n\n04/04/24 P\n\nAUSTIN BRUSSELS DALLAS DUBAI HOUSTON LONDON\n\n### NEW YORK\n\nPALO ALTO RIYADH SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE WASHINGTON\n\nBAKER BOTTS L.L.P.\n\nTEL +1 212.408.2500 FAX +1 212.408.2501\n\nBakerBotts.com\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK\n\n10112-4498\n\nApril 4, 2024\n\nBrendan F. Quigley TEL: 2124082520 FAX: 2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\nRe: *United States v. Yanping Wang*, 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Yanping Wang in this matter. We write in response to the government's March 31, 2024 letter. *See* ECF No. 255 (\"Gov. Letter\").\n\nAs set forth in more detail below, the Court should (i) grant the relief sought by Ms. Wang in her March 28, 2024 letter, ECF No. 253, and (ii) enter a pre-trial schedule consistent with the schedule entered in other document-heavy, complex fraud cases in this District.\n\n# **I. The Court Should Grant the Relief Requested By Ms. Wang in Her March 28 Letter**\n\nThe government's March 31 letter essentially confirms the appropriateness of the relief Ms. Wang requested in her March 28 letter.\n\n# **A. Any Discovery Schedule Entered by the Court Should Set an April 10 Deadline for the Government to Complete Rule 16 Discovery**\n\n*First*, we appreciate the government's representation that it will complete Rule 16 discovery by April 10. *See* Gov. Letter at 2. In numerous previous conversations, it had neglected to agree to a deadline. For the record, the government's voluminous discovery productions continued unabated, over year after the defendants were initially indicted. In the week since we filed our March 28 letter, the government has made four additional productions, totaling approximately 141,000 pages. Only one of these productions (of approximately 9,000 pages) was in response to the Court's February \"Foxhunt order.\" The April 10 deadline is necessary to ensure the defense has adequate time to review the voluminous discovery the government has produced over the last several weeks before the May 20 trial date.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 2 - April 4, 2024\n\nApril 4, 2024\n\n### **B. The Court Should Order the Government to Hand Deliver Discovery to MDC and Order MDC to Promptly Provide the Discovery to the Defendants**\n\n*Second*, the Court should order the government to hand deliver all recent productions and any subsequent productions to the appropriate officials at MDC Brooklyn for prompt delivery to the defendants.\n\nIn the March 31 letter, the government claims it \"has been accommodating the defense's requests to delivery discovery [sic] to the MDC.\" But the government's March 31 letter also makes clear that it took *five weeks* from Ms. Wang's counsel's February 20 request for some (but not all) of that discovery to reach Ms. Wang. During that time, it took the U.S. Attorney's office almost two weeks to load the hard drive provided by Ms. Wang's counsel,<sup>1</sup> that hard drive was then apparently lost by the MDC, and a new hard drive was containing some but not all of the original discovery was delivered to Ms. Wang hours after our March 28 letter was filed. That is some \"accommodation.\"\n\nA similar delay in the delivery of subsequent productions would mean those productions would not reach MDC until the eve, or during, trial.2 In this regard, it is important to note that providing discovery to Ms. Wang at MDC is not merely a matter of \"accommodation\" or even simply of the government's obligations under Rule 16. Ms. Wang's access to discovery is critical to ensuring her rights to a fair trial and to notice of the allegations against her. Indeed, just months ago, in opposing Ms. Wang's motion for a bill of particulars in this very case, the government argued that the \"the Indictment and *discovery materials* provide the defendant with more than enough factual information to adequately defend against the charges.\" Gov't Opp'n to Pre-Trial Motions, ECF No. 232 at 29; *see also id. at 30* (\"In exercising its broad discretion to determine whether the charges are 'so general' that they require supplementing, the Court should consider not just the text of the Indictment, but *also the discovery* and other filings by the Government.\"). But Ms. Wang cannot \"adequately defend against the charges\" if there are lengthy delays in her obtaining access to these very discovery materials, particularly as trial approaches. Accordingly, going forward, the Court should order the government to hand deliver all recent productions and\n\n<sup>1</sup> The government claims in the March 31 letter that it loaded the hard drive \"within the ensuing days\" following its delivery to the USAO. That is, at best, a stretch. Contemporaneous emails make clear it took almost two weeks, from February 27 to approximately March 10, for the USAO to load the drive. *See* Ex. A.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Earlier this week, in response to my outreach, the government made a proposal that would involve its vendor directly copying a drive for discovery to the MDC. I understand that proposal not to be finalized at this time, and, in any event, while we appreciate the government's efforts to find some solution to this issue, it would not solve for the delays in getting Ms. Wang discovery once the drive arrives at MDC. Accordingly, we still request that any drives be hand-delivered to MDC and that MDC be ordered to promptly deliver those drives to Ms. Wang.\n\n| The Honorable Analisa Torres | - 3 - | April 4, 2024 |\n|------------------------------|-------|---------------|\n|------------------------------|-------|---------------|\n\nany subsequent productions to the appropriate officials at MDC Brooklyn for prompt delivery to the defendants.\n\n## **C. The Court Should Restrict the Government's Ability to Designate Certain Material As AEO**\n\nThe government has produced, and continues to produce, significant amounts of material as Attorneys' Eyes Only (\"AEO\"), meaning they cannot be shown to or even discussed with the defendants. A significant portion of these material are plainly not, in any way, the type of \"highly confidential and highly sensitive\" material that AEO status is reserved for. *See* Protective Order, ECF No. 63 ¶ 4. Instead, the government has marked, to give a few examples, as AEO, a picture that appears to be of\n\n![](_page_2_Figure_6.jpeg)\n\nNotably—even though AEO status requires, by the plain terms of the protective order, that the material be \"highly confidential and highly sensitive,\" ECF No. 63 ¶ 4—the government's March 31 letter admits it has designated material as AEO even though the \"content\" of the material is \"not . . . highly sensitive.\" Gov. Letter at 12 (\"it is not their content that is highly sensitive\"). The Court should reject the government's position on that basis alone\n\nThe government nonetheless claims AEO treatment is justified simply because the materials have the \"potential to *identify* the individuals who have provided materials to the Government.\" *Id.* at 12 (emphasis in original).\n\nThe government's position proves too much. To be sure, all materials produced by the government have the \"potential to *identify* the individuals who have provided materials to the Government.\" And there is no credible basis to explain how a photo of Ms. Wang or text messages to which she is party necessarily \"identif[ies]\" how (or from whom) the government obtained that\n\n- <sup>5</sup> *See* Ex. D.\n- <sup>6</sup> *See* Ex. E\n- <sup>7</sup> *See* Ex. F.\n- <sup>8</sup> *See* Ex. G.\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See* Ex. B.\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See* Ex. C.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 4 - April 4, 2024\n\n-4-\n\nApril 4, 2024\n\nevidence. Indeed, the government has numerous means for obtaining these categories of evidence, and, even if the evidence was obtained directly from a particular individual, individuals provide information to the government for a variety of reasons, including because they were forced by the government to provide the information in response to compulsory process such as a search warrant or subpoena, not necessarily because they are sympathetic to the government's case. Finally, as discussed below, there is no basis to argue that Ms. Wang has \"harass[ed], threaten[ed], or intimidat[ed]\"<sup>9</sup> *anyone*, much less in connection with this case.\n\nIn short, the government's logic is severely flawed, proves too much, and directly impacts—indeed eliminates—counsel's ability to discuss discovery with Ms. Wang directly relevant to her case—including conversations involving her and photographs of her in meetings and other contexts—thereby directly impacting her defense.\n\nThe Court should presumptively prohibit the government from designating photographs of the defendants or communications involving the defendants as AEO.\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nIn short, the Court should grant the relief requested by Ms. Wang in her March 28 letter\n\n### **II. The Court Should Enter the Pre-Trial Schedule Proposed by Ms. Wang to the Government on March 26**\n\nThe Court should enter the pre-trial schedule that Ms. Wang proposed to the government via email on March 26, 2024 (and to which the government never substantively responded until it filed its March 31 letter).\n\nFirst, to level set, this is, in fact, \"a fraud case,\" not a terrorism case, a witness-tampering case, or a murder case. Just a few months ago, the government stressed that point in opposing Mr. Kwok's motion to compel discovery, beginning its brief by stating \"[t]his is a fraud case.\" ECF No. 201 at 1. The return of a RICO indictment just weeks later did not change that. Indeed, in arguing that only a \"modest adjournment\" of the original April 8 trial date was necessary despite the RICO indictment, the government noted that, while adding a RICO charge, the S2 RICO indictment \"relies principally on the same allegations as the S1 Indictment\" and that both the prior indictment and the new RICO indictment \"both rely upon the same conduct, the same evidence, and the same witnesses.\" ECF No. 228 at 1. In short, this has been, and still is a fraud case, with attendant large amounts of documentary evidence and no allegations of violence.\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See* Govt. Letter at 12.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 5 - April 4, 2024\n\nThe pre-trial schedule Ms. Wang proposed to the government, and proposes again here, is consistent with the practice in recent similar trials in this District.\n\n| Pretrial Disclosures                                           | Ms. Wang's Proposed<br>Schedule (as proposed in<br>3/26 email to the<br>government) | The government's Proposed<br>Schedule per 3/31 letter                                                                                                       |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Expert Disclosures<br>(excluding Mandarin<br>language experts) | April 1                                                                             | April 1                                                                                                                                                     |\n| Government Rule 16<br>Discovery Materials                      | April 10                                                                            | April 10                                                                                                                                                    |\n| Notice of Certain Defenses                                     | Left for Discussion10<br>[Close of the Government's<br>Case]                        | April 20                                                                                                                                                    |\n| Government Trial Exhibits                                      | April 22                                                                            | April 30 (only non-AEO materials can be shared with<br>defendants; AEO materials can be shared four days prior to relevant testimony, i.e., during trial)). |\n| Government § 3500<br>Material                                  | April 22                                                                            | May 6 (only non-AEO materials can be shared with defendants;<br>AEO materials can be shared four days prior to relevant<br>testimony, i.e., during trial)   |\n\n<sup>10</sup> Specifically, in March 26 correspondence with the government, I told the government \"[w]e're not aware of any basis in the rules or the case law for requiring the defense to provide notice of [defenses] 'premised on advice of counsel, reliance on counsel, presence of counsel, or other involvement of counsel, and produce discovery materials relating to any such defense,' at any point, much less two weeks before the government's case begins. The cite to Bankman-Fried in [one AUSA's] email appears to have been stipulation between the parties in that case. If you want to provide us with an actual basis in the rules or caselaw for such broad disclosure, we will consider it.\" The government did not do so until it filed the March 31 letter. As discussed below, that case law is not remotely persuasive.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 6 - April 4, 2024\n\n $-6-$\nApril 4, 2024\n\n| Government Witness List             | May 6  | May 6    |\n|-------------------------------------|--------|----------|\n| Defendants'<br>Rule 16<br>Materials | May 6  | April 22 |\n| Defendants' Trial Exhibits          | May 10 | May 10   |\n| Defendants' Witness List            | May 13 | May 10   |\n| Defense 26.2 Material               | May 27 | May 13   |\n\nAgain, Ms. Wang's schedule is consistent with the schedules in other similar cases in this District. In particular:\n\n**Government Exhibits and 3500:** The schedule contemplates production of government exhibits and 3500 material on April 22, four weeks before trial, consistent with the practice in recent document-heavy, fraud trials in the Southern District of New York. *See, e.g.*, Scheduling Order for Trial-Related Motions and Discovery, *United States v. Bankman-Fried,.*, No. 22-CR-00673 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2023), ECF No. 173 (government to provide § 3500 material by September 8, 2023 where jury selection was set to begin October 3, 2023); Letter, *United States v. Milton*, No. 21-CR-00478 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022), ECF No. 73 (government to provide § 3500 material by March 7, 2022 where trial was scheduled for April 4, 2022), Memo Endorsement, *United States v. Cole*, 19-CR-00869 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020), ECF No. 23 (granting schedule requiring the government to provide § 3500 material four weeks before trial).\n\n**Defense Rule 16, Exhibits, and Witness List**. The schedule contemplates the production the production of defense Rule 16 materials two weeks before trial and the production defense of exhibits ten days before trial, i.e., *at least eight weeks before any defense case* would begin (given the government's estimated six to seven week case-in-chief). Even notwithstanding the lengthy anticipated government case, approximately two weeks before trial is in line with District practice. *See, e,g., Bankman-Fried, supra*, (for trial beginning October 2, 2023; defense exhibits, Rule 16 materials, and 26.2 materials, due September 18, i.e. two weeks before trial); *Milton, supra*, (for April 4 trial, defense Rule 16 to be produced by March 14 and defense exhibits to be produced by March 21); *United States v. Avenatti*, No. 19-cr-374 (JMF), Dkt. 213 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2022) (ordering for January 24 trial, defendant to begin rule 16 production by January 16 and complete it by January 18).11\n\n<sup>11</sup> Further, from Ms. Wang's perspective, the government's speculation about there being a massive amount of defense discovery from her is completely unwarranted.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 7 - April 4, 2024\n\nFor both government exhibits and defense exhibits, we have no objection to those exhibits and exhibit lists being subject to good-faith revision as the parties continue to prepare their cases.\n\nAccordingly, the Court should enter the schedule requested by Ms. Wang.\n\n### **III. The Court Should Reject the Government's Unique Proposals**\n\nThe government's proposed schedule has several features that are out of step with District practice and, moreover, unsupported by the facts and the applicable law. The Court should reject these features.\n\n## **A. There is No Basis to Require Notice of Any \"Advice of Counsel\" Defense Before Trial, Much Less Any Defense Based on \"Involvement of Counsel\"**\n\nThe government's proposal for an April 20 deadline for the \"defendants [to] notify the Government of their intention, if any, to rely on an advice-of-counsel, reliance on counsel, presence of counsel, or other involvement of counsel as a defense to the charges,\" has no basis in the record or the law.\n\n*First*, for avoidance of doubt, Ms. Wang has no intention—none—\"to rely on the advice of dozens of attorneys, from dozens of different law firms,\" *cf.* at Gov. Letter at 8, in her defense.12\n\n*Second*, requiring notice of any \"advice of counsel\" defense by April 20 is inappropriate under the circumstances of this case and the law.\n\nTo begin with, there is no explicit basis under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require pre-trial notice of any advice of counsel defense. *See United States v. Ray*, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2021 WL 5493839, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021) (rejecting government's request for pre-trial notice of advice of counsel defense and instead requiring that any such notice be given \"no later than the close of the government's case-in-chief\").\n\nAnd numerous courts have held that it is inappropriate to require any such notice *at all*. *United States v. Wilkerson*, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 975 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (rejecting government request for pre-trial notice of advice of counsel defense, noting \"the Court does not know why a criminal defendant must decide what defense (if any) to pursue in advance of trial or risk losing the option altogether\"); *accord United States v. Espy*, No. CRIM.A. 96-198, 1996 WL 560354, at \\*1 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 1996); *United States v. Meredith*, No. 3:12CR-143-S, 2014 WL 897373, at \\*1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 6, 2014) (noting the Court \"has no authority to compel pretrial disclosure beyond the bounds of Rule 16\"); *United States v. Afremov*, No. CRIM. 06-196 JRT/SRN, 2007 WL\n\n<sup>12</sup> To the extent the Court requires additional information concerning Ms. Wang's anticipated defense strategy at this stage, counsel would be willing to provide that on an *ex parte* basis.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 8 - April 4, 2024\n\n $-8-$\nApril 4, 2024\n\n2475972, at \\*4 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2007) (\"Nor does the prosecution have a right to notice from the defense that it intends to assert an advice of counsel defense at trial.\")\n\nTo the extent the Court requires any notice of an advice of counsel defense, it is appropriate that such notice await the close of the government's case in chief, as Judge Liman ordered in *Ray*. Here, as in *Ray*, the government's case \"is expected to be lengthy [and] last several weeks . . . .\"2021 WL 5493839, at \\*7. As such, \"there will be time enough for the Court to test whether there is a viable advice-of-counsel defense to any of the charges and, if there is, for the defense to produce documents that relate to the advice of counsel, even if [that decision] waits until the end of the government's case.\" *Id.*\n\nAn earlier deadline, particularly the government's proposed April 20 deadline, turns the principles of criminal discovery on their head. The government's proposal for the names of attorneys the defendants may rely on \"is tantamount to a request for a witness list.\" *See Ray*, 2021 WL 5493839 at \\*5. Thus, the government's April 20 deadline would require defense to produce a partial witness list before the government's witness list is due under *either* proposed schedule above, which is completely improper. *See Ray*, 2021 WL 5493839 at \\*5 (\"The request for the names of the attorneys is tantamount to a request for a witness list. Pretrial, the government argued vigorously that [the defendant] is not entitled to the names of the witnesses the government intends to present to support its case-in-chief and to meet the elements of the offenses charged in the indictment. *. . .* The government has lesser entitlement to require the defense to disclose the witnesses it would call to negate the government's proof.\" (citations omitted)).\n\nAnd the April 20 deadline would be only ten days after the government plans to complete its voluminous Rule 16 production, and three weeks *before* the government proposes to produce its witness and exhibit list. The advice of counsel defense is, after all, a defense and choosing to waive privilege \"is a consequential event.\" *Ray*, 2021 WL 5493839 at \\*6. Requiring the defense to provide notice before the government produces its witness list and exhibit list (much less before the start of the government's lengthy case) would be improper.\n\n*Third,* the government takes a giant, improper leap by suggesting that there is authority not only for providing notice of a \"formal advice of counsel defense\" but also any \"good faith defense\" that includes the \"involvement of attorneys.\" Govt. Letter at at 6. None of the cases cited by the government for this proposition go *remotely* this far. All explicitly involved the formal \"advice of counsel\" defense and indeed, and all are easily distinguishable.\n\nTwo—*Schulte* and *Scali—*involved earlier waivers of the attorney-client privilege during the proceedings. *Cf. United States v. Schulte*, No. S2 17 CR. 548 (PAC), 2020 WL 133620, at \\*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020) (granting \"the Government's motion for disclosure concerning the advice-of-counsel defense\" following the defense's earlier waiver of the privilege); *United States v. Scali*, No. 16-CR-466 (NSR), 2018 WL 461441, at \\*8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018), (\"The question of whether the Defendant will assert an advice of counsel defense with regards to the two tax evasion counts is moot because the *Defendant unequivocally admitted to it in his pleading*\" (emphasis added)).\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 9 - April 4, 2024\n\n-9-\n\nApril 4, 2024\n\nAnd finally, in *United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs*., 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 712 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), Judge Marrero \"DENIED\" the government's request for six weeks' notice of \"any advice of counsel defense.\" 828 F. Supp. at 712 (emphasis in original).\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nAccordingly, to the extent the Court requires any notice of an advice of counsel defense, that notice should not need to be provided before the end of the government's case.\n\n### **B. The Protective Measures Proposed by the Government Are Not Supported by the Facts and the Law**\n\nThe government's schedule also contemplates that it \"designate a limited set of exhibits that would identify victim-witnesses designated AEO and that AEO designation will be lifted four days prior to the introduction of any so-designated exhibit at trial\" and for \"victim-witness identities and associated 3500 materials designated AEO[,] [t]he AEO designation will be lifted four days prior to the testimony of any victim-witness.\"\n\nIn other words, the government plans to prohibit defense counsel from even discussing with the defendants untold portions of exhibits and 3500 material until *during trial*, in a trial in which the defendants are incarcerated, that will undoubtedly involve numerous foreign-language exhibits and that it, in the government's own words, is \"fraud case,\" involving no acts of violence.\n\nThere is *no* precedent for this.\n\nFirst, the government claims these procedures are warranted because this case involves \"defendants who have gone to great lengths to intimidate, harass, and threaten—and at times physically harm—those who speak out against them.\" Govt. Letter at 13. In reality, there is *zero*  evidence that Ms. Wang, a 45-year old cancer survivor, has gone to any lengths, much less \"great lengths\" \"to intimidate, harass, and threaten—and at times physically harm\" *anyone*.\n\nSecond, even the specific allegations of \"obstruction\" the government raises against Ms. Wang do not remotely justify the protective measures the government seeks. Ms. Wang's alleged January 2022 \"coaching\" of Mr. Kwok's daughter—a 35-year old, college-educated professional—does not come remotely close to the conduct in the cases the government cites in support of its drastic protective measures. *See* Superseding Indictment, *United States v. Jones*, No. 21-CR-00505 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2023), ECF No. 35 (charging defendant with, among other things, conspiracy to murder a federal informant to prevent communication to law enforcement, and murder of a federal informant to prevent communication to law enforcement); *United States v. Kandic*, No. 17CR449S1NGGRER, 2021 WL 5505832, at \\*1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2021) (considering whether to empanel an anonymous and/or semi-sequestered jury where defendant was charged with \"conspiring to provide, providing, and attempting to provide material support of terrorism\"); Superseding Indictment, *United States v. Garcia*, 21-CR-00412 (July 21, 2021), ECF No. 42 (charging defendant with us[ing] and carry[ing] a firearm\"); Indictment, *United States v. Bilal*, 19-CR-00565 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2019), ECF No. 1 (charging defendant with \"possess[ing]\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 10 - April 4, 2024\n\n-10-\n\nApril 4, 2024\n\na firearm, and in the course of [a] drug trafficking crime . . . caus[ing] the death of a person through the use of a firearm, which killing is murder\").\n\nAnd, while the government cites \"recorded conversations with individuals within the Kwok Enterprise,\" suggesting \"Wang—while in custody, following her arrest in this case—used her prior counsel to ferry her request to retrieve bank checks consisting of millions of dollars of G|CLUBS funds,\" Govt. Letter at 11, that allegation simply highlights the problems with the government's discovery we discussed above and in our March 28 letter.\n\nThe recordings in question appear to have made in April and May 2023; they were produced by the government just weeks, ago on March 15, 2024; and the government has designated them AEO, meaning counsel can't even discuss them with Ms. Wang (even though they involved \"individuals within the Kwok Enterprise\" and not \"victim-witnesses\") to get her understanding of the relevant facts. In short, the very evidence the government relies on to justify even more AEO restrictions highlights the problems with its over-designation of AEO materials and its late produced discovery.13 In any event, none of this alleged conduct actually involves witness intimidation or harassment, much less conduct akin to the terrorism and murder cases the government relies on.\n\n*Finally*, the government's track record of over-designation of AEO, overly broad conceptions of \"victim witnesses,\"14 and delays in getting materials to the MDC provide further evidence that restricting the defendants' access to key evidence until trial actually begins is likely to have a significant impact on the defendants' trial rights. It may necessitate mid-trial adjournments if, for example , the defendants need additional time to review that evidence, the MDC needs additional time to get it to the defendants, or there is litigation concerning the government's designations.\n\nIn short, the government's requested protective measures are unprecedented in a fraud case, unwarranted under the circumstances, and almost certainly unworkable in practice.\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\n<sup>13</sup> For the record, we strenuously dispute the government's characterization of those recorded conversations (which did not involve Ms. Wang).\n\n<sup>14</sup> While the government's March 31 letter cites the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, it omits that the statute actually defines \"crime victim\" relatively narrowly as \"a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(2)(A). Some of the individuals the government apparently classifies \"victims\" based on its AEO designations appear, based on the defense's review of discovery, more likely to be testifying at trial pursuant to cooperation or similar agreements.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 11 - April 4, 2024\n\n-11-\n\nApril 4, 2024\n\nThe Court should grant the relief Ms. Wang requested in her March 28 letter and enter her proposed pre-trial schedule.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Brendan F. Quigley*  Brendan F. Quigley","body_zh":"文件 260\n\n04/04/24 P\n\n奥斯汀 布鲁塞尔 达拉斯 迪拜 休斯敦 伦敦\n\n纽约\n\n帕洛阿尔托 利雅得 旧金山 新加坡 华盛顿\n\nBAKER BOTTS L.L.P.（贝克博茨有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n\n电话 +1 212.408.2500 传真 +1 212.408.2501\n\nBakerBotts.com\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK（洛克菲勒广场30号，纽约州纽约市）\n\n10112-4498\n\n2024年4月4日\n\nBrendan F. Quigley 电话：2124082520 传真：2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nAnalisa Torres 阁下 美国联邦地区法官 Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院） 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n我们在本案中代表 Yanping Wang（王雁平）。我们谨以此函回复政府2024年3月31日的信函。参见 ECF No. 255（“政府信函”）。\n\n如下文更详尽所述，法院应当 (i) 支持王女士在其2024年3月28日信函（ECF No. 253）中所请求的救济，以及 (ii) 确立一项与本司法区其他涉及海量文件、复杂的欺诈案件中所确立的时间表一致的审前时间表。\n\nI. 法院应当支持王女士在其3月28日信函中所请求的救济\n\n政府3月31日的信函实际上确认了王女士在其3月28日信函中所请求救济的合理性。\n\nA. 法院确立的任何证据开示时间表均应将4月10日设定为政府完成《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条（Rule 16）证据开示的截止日期\n\n第一，我们对政府表示将在4月10日前完成第16条证据开示的陈述表示感谢。参见政府信函第2页。在先前的多次交涉中，政府一直未能同意设定截止日期。记录在案的是，在被告最初被起诉一年多之后，政府海量的证据开示材料交付仍在不减速地持续进行。自我们提交3月28日信函后的一周内，政府又进行了四次补充交付，总计约141,000页。其中仅有一次交付（约9,000页）是针对法院2月份作出的“猎狐行动命令”作出的回应。4月10日的截止日期是必要的，以确保辩方在5月20日开庭审理日期之前，有充分的时间审查政府在过去几周内交付的海量证据开示材料。\n\nAnalisa Torres 阁下 - 2 - 2024年4月4日\n\n2024年4月4日\n\nB. 法院应当命令政府向 MDC 专人送达证据开示材料，并命令 MDC 及时将证据开示材料提供给被告\n\n第二，法院应当命令政府将近期所有的交付材料以及随后的任何交付材料，以专人送达的方式移交给 MDC Brooklyn（布鲁克林大都会拘留中心）的有关官员，以便及时向被告提供。\n\n在3月31日的信函中，政府声称其“一直在配合辩方提出的向 MDC 交付证据开示材料[原文如此]的请求”。但政府3月31日的信函也明确表明，从王女士的律师于2月20日提出请求起，历时整整五周，其中的部分（而非全部）证据开示材料才送达王女士手中。在此期间，联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's office）花了近两周的时间才将王女士律师提供的硬盘载入数据，[1] 随后该硬盘显然被 MDC 遗失，而在我们的3月28日信函提交数小时后，才向王女士送达了一个包含部分而非全部原始证据开示材料的新硬盘。这可真是所谓的“配合”。\n\n随后的交付材料如果在送达时出现类似延误，将意味着这些交付材料要等到开庭前夕、甚至在审判进行期间才能送达 MDC。[2] 在这方面，必须指出的是，向身处 MDC 的王女士提供证据开示材料，不仅关乎“配合”，甚至也不仅关乎政府在第16条项下的法定义务。王女士获取证据开示材料，对于保障其获得公正审判的权利以及对受到的指控获得知情通知的权利至关重要。事实上，就在几个月前，在正是本案中反对王女士提出的索要明细起诉书的动议时，政府还主张“起诉书和证据开示材料已为被告提供了绰绰有余的事实信息，以充分抗辩指控”。政府对审前动议的反对书，ECF No. 232 第29页；亦参见同上第30页（“在行使其广泛的自由裁量权以确定指控是否‘过于宽泛’以至于需要补充时，法院不仅应当考虑起诉书的文本，还应当考虑证据开示材料以及政府提交的其他文件。”）。但是，如果王女士在获取这些正是证据开示材料方面面临漫长的延误，尤其是在审判临近之际，她就无法“充分抗辩指控”。因此，今后法院应当命令政府以专人送达的方式将近期所有的交付材料以及\n\n[1] 政府在3月31日的信函中声称，在硬盘送达联邦检察官办公室（USAO）后的“随后数日内”完成了数据载入。这充其量是一种夸大其词的说辞。当时往来的电子邮件明确表明，USAO 花了近两周时间（从2月27日到大约3月10日）才将数据载入该硬盘。参见附件 A。\n\n[2] 本周早些时候，作为对我的沟通的回应，政府提出了一项方案，其中涉及由其外包供应商直接复制一份用于证据开示的硬盘送至 MDC。据我所知，该方案目前尚未最终敲定，而且无论如何，尽管我们对政府寻求解决这一问题的努力表示赞赏，但这并不能解决硬盘送达 MDC 后向王女士交付证据开示材料的延误问题。因此，我们仍然请求将任何硬盘以专人送达的方式送至 MDC，并命令 MDC 及时将这些硬盘交付给王女士。\n\nAnalisa Torres 阁下 - 3 - 2024年4月4日\n\n随后的任何交付材料移交给布鲁克林 MDC 的有关官员，以便及时交付给被告。\n\nC. 法院应当限制政府将某些材料指定为 AEO 的权力\n\n政府已经交付并将继续交付大量指定为“仅限律师查阅”（Attorneys' Eyes Only，“AEO”）的材料，这意味着这些材料不能向被告展示，甚至不能与被告讨论。这些材料中的相当大一部分，显然绝不属于 AEO 身份所专用的那种“高度机密和高度敏感”的材料。参见保护令，ECF No. 63 第4段。相反，仅举数例，政府将一张看似为\n\n[图片]\n\n值得注意的是——尽管根据保护令的明确条款，AEO 身份要求该材料必须是“高度机密和高度敏感的”，ECF No. 63 第4段——但政府3月31日的信函承认，即使该材料的“内容”“并非……高度敏感”，政府也已将其指定为 AEO。政府信函第12页（“高度敏感的并非其内容”）。法院仅凭这一理由就应当驳回政府的立场。\n\n尽管如此，政府依然声称给予 AEO 待遇是合理的，理由仅仅是这些材料具有“可能识别向政府提供材料的个人的身份”。同上第12页（原文强调）。\n\n政府的立场过犹不及。诚然，政府交付的所有材料都具有“可能识别向政府提供材料的个人的身份”。而且，根本没有任何可靠的依据可以解释，为何一张王女士的照片或她作为当事方的短信，就必然会“识别”出政府是如何（或从何人处）获取该\n\n[5] 参见附件 D。\n[6] 参见附件 E。\n[7] 参见附件 F。\n[8] 参见附件 G。\n\n[3] 参见附件 B。\n\n[4] 参见附件 C。\n\nAnalisa Torres 阁下 - 4 - 2024年4月4日\n\n-4-\n\n2024年4月4日\n\n证据的。事实上，政府有多种途径获取此类别的证据，而且，即便该证据是直接从某一特定个人处获取的，个人向政府提供信息也有各种各样的原因，包括因为他们因搜查令或传票等强制法律程序而被迫向政府提供信息，并不一定是因为他们支持政府的控诉。最后，如下文所讨论的，没有任何依据可以主张王女士曾“骚扰、威胁或恐吓”[9]过任何人，更谈不上与本案有关联。\n\n简而言之，政府的逻辑存在严重漏洞，过犹不及，并且直接影响——实际上是剥夺了——律师与王女士讨论与其案件直接相关的证据开示材料（包括涉及她的对话以及她在会议和其他场合的照片）的能力，从而直接影响了她的辩护。\n\n法院应当推定禁止政府将涉及被告的照片或涉及被告的通信指定为 AEO。\n\n***\n\n简而言之，法院应当支持王女士在其3月28日信函中所请求的救济。\n\nII. 法院应当确立王女士于3月26日向政府提议的审前时间表\n\n法院应当确立王女士于2024年3月26日通过电子邮件向政府提议的审前时间表（政府在提交其3月31日信函之前从未对该时间表作出实质性回应）。\n\n首先，为明确基本事实，本案实际上是“一起欺诈案”，而不是恐怖主义案件、干扰证人案件或谋杀案件。就在几个月前，政府在反对 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）强迫进行证据开示的动议时还强调了这一点，其答辩状开篇即陈述“[本]案是一起欺诈案”。ECF No. 201 第1页。数周后作出的一份涉及 RICO（《反敲诈勒索及腐败组织法》）的起诉书并未改变这一性质。事实上，在主张尽管出台了 RICO 起诉书但也仅需将原定的4月8日开庭日期“适度延期”时，政府指出，虽然增加了 RICO 罪名项，但 S2 RICO 起诉书“主要依赖于与 S1 起诉书相同的指控”，并且先前的起诉书和新的 RICO 起诉书“均依赖于相同的行为、相同的证据和相同的证人”。ECF No. 228 第1页。简而言之，本案过去是、现在仍然是一起伴随有海量书证且不涉及任何暴力指控的欺诈案件。\n\n[9] 参见政府信函第12页。\n\nAnalisa Torres 阁下 - 5 - 2024年4月4日\n\n王女士向政府提议并在此再次提议的审前时间表，与本司法区近期类似审判中的实践做法是一致的。\n\n审前开示事项 | Wang（王女士）提议的时间表（如3月26日致政府电邮中所提议） | 政府依据3月31日信函提议的时间表\n专家开示（不含普通话专家） | 4月1日 | 4月1日\n政府第16条开示材料 | 4月10日 | 4月10日\n若干辩护理由的通知 | 留待讨论10 [政府举证阶段结束时] | 4月20日\n政府审理证据 | 4月22日 | 4月30日（仅非AEO材料可向被告方分享；AEO材料可在相关证言发表前四天分享，即庭审期间）\n政府第3500条材料 | 4月22日 | 5月6日（仅非AEO材料可向被告方分享；AEO材料可在相关证言发表前四天分享，即庭审期间）\n\n10 具体而言，在3月26日与政府的往来信函中，我告知政府：“对于要求辩护方在任何时间节点，更不用说在政府举证开始前两周，就‘基于律师建议、对律师的信赖、律师在场或其他律师参与’的[辩护理由]提供通知，并出示与任何此类辩护相关的开示材料，我们未发现有任何规则或判例法依据。[一位联邦助理检察官]电邮中对 Bankman-Fried 案的引用，似乎是该案当事人之间的约定。如果你们想向我们提供支持如此宽泛开示的实际规则或判例法依据，我们会予以考虑。”政府直到提交3月31日的信函前均未予提供。如下文所述，该等判例法根本不具说服力。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官 - 6 - 2024年4月4日\n\n-6-\n2024年4月4日\n\n政府证人名单 | 5月6日 | 5月6日\n被告方第16条材料 | 5月6日 | 4月22日\n被告方审理证据 | 5月10日 | 5月10日\n被告方证人名单 | 5月13日 | 5月10日\n辩护方第26.2条材料 | 5月27日 | 5月13日\n\n同样，王女士的时间表与本地区其他类似案件的时间表相一致。特别是：\n\n政府证据与3500材料：该时间表考虑在4月22日（即开庭前四周）出示政府证据和3500材料，这符合 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）近期涉及大量文件的欺诈案庭审实践。参见例如《关于审判相关动议及开示的时间表裁定》，United States v. Bankman-Fried 案，案号 22-CR-00673 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2023)，ECF No. 173（在陪审团选任定于2023年10月3日开始的情况下，政府须在2023年9月8日前提供第3500条材料）；信函，United States v. Milton 案，案号 21-CR-00478 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022)，ECF No. 73（在开庭定于2022年4月4日的情况下，政府须在2022年3月7日前提供第3500条材料）；备忘录批示，United States v. Cole 案，案号 19-CR-00869 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020)，ECF No. 23（准许要求政府在开庭前四周提供第3500条材料的时间表）。\n\n辩护方第16条材料、证据及证人名单。该时间表考虑在开庭前两周出示辩护方第16条材料，并在开庭前十天出示辩护方证据，即在任何辩护方举证开始前至少八周出示（鉴于政府预估的案情主干举证阶段为六至七周）。即使不考虑政府预期的漫长举证阶段，开庭前约两周也符合本地区的司法实践。参见例如前引 Bankman-Fried 案（针对2023年10月2日开始的庭审，辩护方证据、第16条材料和第26.2条材料于9月18日截止提交，即开庭前两周）；前引 Milton 案（针对4月4日的庭审，辩护方第16条材料须在3月14日前出示，辩护方证据须在3月21日前出示）；United States v. Avenatti 案，案号 19-cr-374 (JMF)，Dkt. 213 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2022)（裁定针对1月24日的庭审，被告人于1月16日前开始进行第16条出示，并在1月18日前完成）。11\n\n11 此外，从王女士的角度来看，政府对来自她的辩护方开示将极为庞大的推测是完全毫无根据的。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 7 - 2024年4月4日\n\n对于政府证据和辩护方证据，我们不反对随着双方继续准备各自案情，这些证据和证据清单在出于善意的前提下进行修改。\n\n因此，法院应作出王女士所请求的时间表裁定。\n\nIII. 法院应驳回政府提出的非同寻常的提议\n\n政府提议的时间表具有若干脱离本地区实践的特征，而且缺乏事实和适用法律的支持。法院应驳回这些提议。\n\nA. 没有任何依据要求在审前就任何“律师建议”辩护理由发出通知，更不用说基于“律师参与”的任何辩护理由\n\n政府提议将4月20日设为“被告人就其是否意图依赖律师建议、对律师的信赖、律师在场或其他律师参与作为针对指控的辩护理由而通知政府”的截止日期，该提议在案卷记录或法律上均毫无依据。\n\n第一，为免生疑义，王女士在其辩护中绝无任何意图——完全没有——“依赖来自数十家不同律师事务所的数十名律师的建议”，参见政府信函第8页。12\n\n第二，在案件具体情况和法律规定下，要求在4月20日前就任何“律师建议”辩护理由发出通知是不适当的。\n\n首先，《联邦刑事诉讼规则》中没有明确依据要求就任何律师建议辩护理由提供审前通知。参见 United States v. Ray 案，案号 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2021 WL 5493839, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021)（驳回政府要求就律师建议辩护理由提供审前通知的请求，转而要求任何此类通知“不得迟于政府案情主干举证阶段结束时”发出）。\n\n而且许多法院已裁定，根本不适宜要求任何此类通知。United States v. Wilkerson 案，388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 975 (E.D. Tenn. 2019)（驳回政府要求就律师建议辩护理由提供审前通知的请求，指出“法院不明白为何刑事被告人必须在审前决定采取何种辩护策略（若有），否则将面临完全丧失该选择的风险”）；一致判决见 United States v. Espy 案，案号 CRIM.A. 96-198, 1996 WL 560354, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 1996)；United States v. Meredith 案，案号 3:12CR-143-S, 2014 WL 897373, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 6, 2014)（指出法院“无权强制作出超出第16条范围的审前开示”）；United States v. Afremov 案，案号 CRIM. 06-196 JRT/SRN, 2007 WL\n\n12 在法院于现阶段需要有关王女士预期辩护策略的补充信息的范围内，辩护律师愿意单方面（ex parte）向法院提供该等信息。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 8 - 2024年4月4日\n\n-8-\n2024年4月4日\n\n2475972, at *4 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2007)（“控方亦无权要求辩护方通知其意图在庭审中主张律师建议辩护。”）\n\n在法院要求就律师建议辩护理由提供任何通知的范围内，适宜的做法是将该等通知延至政府案情主干举证阶段结束时，正如 Liman（利曼）法官在 Ray 案中所命令的那样。在本案中，与在 Ray 案中一样，政府的举证“预计将较为冗长[且]持续数周……”。2021 WL 5493839, at *7。因此，“法院届时将有充裕时间来检验针对任何指控是否存在可行的律师建议辩护理由，若存在，辩护方亦有充裕时间出示与律师建议相关的文件，即使[该决定]留待政府举证结束时做出。”同上。\n\n更早的截止日期，特别是政府提议的4月20日截止日期，完全颠覆了刑事开示原则。政府关于获取被告人可能依赖的律师姓名的提议“等同于要求提供证人名单”。参见 Ray 案，2021 WL 5493839 at *5。因此，政府的4月20日截止日期将要求辩护方在上述任何一份拟议时间表规定的政府证人名单到期日之前出示一份部分证人名单，这是完全不当的。参见 Ray 案，2021 WL 5493839 at *5（“要求提供律师姓名等同于要求提供证人名单。在审前，政府曾极力主张[被告人]无权获知政府意图传唤以支持其主干案情并满足起诉书中所控罪名构成要件的证人姓名。……政府更无权要求辩护方披露其用于推翻政府举证而将传唤的证人。”（引文省略））。\n\n而且4月20日的截止日期仅在政府计划完成其庞大的第16条出示后十天，且比政府提议出示其证人和证据清单早三周。毕竟，律师建议辩护是一种辩护主张，选择放弃特权“是一项重大事件”。Ray 案，2021 WL 5493839 at *6。要求辩护方在政府出示其证人名单和证据清单之前（更不用说在政府冗长的举证开始之前）提供通知，是不当的。\n\n第三，政府通过暗示不仅有权要求就“正式的律师建议辩护”提供通知，而且有权要求就包含“律师参与”的任何“善意辩护”提供通知，跨出了巨大且不当的一步。政府信函第6页。政府为此主张所引用的案例没有一个甚至能稍微达到这一程度。所有案例均明确涉及正式的“律师建议”辩护，且事实上均极易与本案区分开来。\n\n其中两起案件——Schulte 案和 Scali 案——涉及在诉讼程序早期放弃了律师-委托人保密特权。参见 United States v. Schulte, No. S2 17 CR. 548 (PAC), 2020 WL 133620, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020)（在辩方此前放弃特权后，准许“政府关于听从律师建议抗辩的信息披露动议”）；United States v. Scali, No. 16-CR-466 (NSR), 2018 WL 461441, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)（“关于被告是否会就两项逃税罪名提出听从律师建议抗辩的问题已无实际意义，因为被告已在其诉状中明确承认了这一点”（强调为原文所加））。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官 - 9 - 2024年4月4日\n\n-9-\n\n2024年4月4日\n\n最后，在 United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Ins. Servs., 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 712 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 一案中，Marrero（马雷罗）法官“驳回”了政府关于就“任何听从律师建议抗辩”提前六周发出通知的请求。828 F. Supp. at 712（强调为原文所加）。\n\n***\n\n因此，即便法院要求对听从律师建议抗辩发出任何通知，该通知也无须在政府举证阶段结束前提供。\n\nB. 政府提议的保护措施缺乏事实和法律依据\n\n政府的时间表还设想：其“指定一组有限的物证/证据，以指明被指定为 AEO（仅限律师查阅）的被害人-证人，且该 AEO 标记将在审理中引入任何此类指定证据前四天予以解除”，并且针对“被指定为 AEO 的被害人-证人身份及相关 3500材料，AEO 标记将在任何被害人-证人作证前四天予以解除”。\n\n换句话说，政府计划在审理进行中之前，禁止辩护律师与被告讨论数量不明的大量证据和 3500材料，而本案审理中被告处于在押状态，审理无疑将涉及大量外语证据，且用政府自己的话来说，这是一起不涉及任何暴力行为的“欺诈案”。\n\n对此绝无先例。\n\n首先，政府声称这些程序是正当的，因为本案涉及“竭尽全力恐吓、骚扰和威胁——并不时进行人身伤害——那些公开发声反对他们的人的被告”。政府信函第 13 页。事实上，毫无证据表明现年 45 岁且曾罹患癌症幸存的 Ms. Wang（王女士）曾采取任何手段，更谈不上“竭尽全力”去“恐吓、骚扰和威胁——并不时进行人身伤害”任何人。\n\n其次，即使是政府针对王女士提出的“妨碍司法”的具体指控，也根本无法证明政府所寻求的保护措施具有合理性。王女士据称于 2022 年 1 月对 Mr. Kwok（郭先生）的女儿——一位 35 岁、受过大学教育的专业人士——进行的“辅导/串供”，与政府引以支持其严苛保护措施的判例中的行为相去甚远。参见 Superseding Indictment, United States v. Jones, No. 21-CR-00505 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2023), ECF No. 35（指控被告犯有共谋谋杀联邦线人以阻止其向执法部门通报情况，以及谋杀联邦线人以阻止其向执法部门通报情况等多项罪名）；United States v. Kandic, No. 17CR449S1NGGRER, 2021 WL 5505832, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2021)（在被告被指控“共谋提供、提供以及企图提供对恐怖主义的物质支持”的案件中，审酌是否选任匿名和/或半隔离陪审团）；Superseding Indictment, United States v. Garcia, 21-CR-00412 (July 21, 2021), ECF No. 42（指控被告“使用和携带枪支”）；Indictment, United States v. Bilal, 19-CR-00565 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2019), ECF No. 1（指控被告“持有\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官 - 10 - 2024年4月4日\n\n-10-\n\n2024年4月4日\n\n枪支，并在毒品贩运犯罪过程中……通过使用枪支致人死亡，该杀人行为构成谋杀”）。\n\n而且，尽管政府援引了“与 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）内部人员的录音对话”，暗示“王——在本案被捕后羁押期间——利用其前任律师传递其索取由数百万美元 G|CLUBS 资金构成的银行支票的请求”，政府信函第 11 页，但该指控恰恰凸显了我们在上文及 3 月 28 日信函中所讨论的政府证据开示存在的问题。\n\n涉案录音似乎录制于 2023 年 4 月和 5 月；政府直到数周前的 2024 年 3 月 15 日才开示这些录音；并且政府已将其指定为 AEO，这意味着律师甚至无法与王女士讨论这些录音（尽管其中涉及的是“郭氏企业内部人员”而非“被害人-证人”），以了解她对相关事实的掌握情况。简而言之，政府用来作为实施更多 AEO 限制的正当理由的证据本身，恰恰凸显了其过度指定 AEO 材料以及迟延开示证据的问题。13 无论如何，这些被指控的行为均未实际涉及恐吓或骚扰证人，更谈不上与政府所依赖的恐怖主义和谋杀案件中的行为有任何相似之处。\n\n最后，政府过度指定 AEO 的过往记录、对“被害人证人”14过于宽泛的界定，以及向 MDC（大都会拘留中心）移交材料的迟延，进一步证明在审理实际开始之前限制被告获取关键证据，极可能对被告的审判权利产生重大影响。例如，如果被告需要额外时间审查该证据、MDC 需要额外时间将证据送交被告，或者就政府的标记认定产生争议诉讼，这可能会导致审理中途休庭。\n\n简而言之，政府所请求的保护措施在一宗欺诈案中史无前例，在当前情况下毫无根据，而且在实践中几乎完全不可行。\n\n***\n\n13 为记录在案，我们坚决反对政府对那些录音对话（其中并不涉及王女士）的定性。\n\n14 尽管政府在 3 月 31 日的信函中引用了 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act（《强制被害人赔偿法》），但它忽略了该法实际上将“犯罪被害人”相对狭义地定义为“因实施联邦犯罪而直接且近因受到伤害的人”。18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(2)(A)。根据辩方对证据开示的审查，政府根据其 AEO 标记显然归类为“被害人”的部分人员，似乎更有可能是依据配合协议或类似协议在审理中出庭作证。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官 - 11 - 2024年4月4日\n\n-11-\n\n2024年4月4日\n\n法院应当准许王女士在其 3 月 28 日信函中所请求的救济，并采纳其提议的审前日程安排。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/签名/ Brendan F. Quigley（布伦丹·F·奎格利）  Brendan F. Quigley","key_entities":["Torres","Analisa Torres","Je","RICO","Kwok","CIPA","Yanping Wang","Crime Victim"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":23,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":35,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":42,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":63,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":73,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":173,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":201,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":213,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":228,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":232,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":253,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":255,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4349,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:38:03"}