{"id":"court_sdny_309_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":309,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":"2024-04-28","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498","summary_zh":"信件——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #309（2024年4月28日提交）。同案被告王雁萍（Yanping Wang）辩护律师致函 Torres 法官，称政府迟延且以近似“文件倾倒”的方式产出庭审证据、其中含明显不可采信材料，要求延长辩方 Rule 16 材料及庭审证据披露期限，并请求排除政府逾期产出的部分材料；信中还指出政府在法院设定的截止日之后仍持续产出本应早前提交的 Rule 16 材料。","summary_en":"Letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 309 (filed April 28, 2024). Counsel for co-defendant Yanping Wang wrote to Judge Torres, asserting that the government's trial-exhibit production was untimely and amounted to a document dump containing plainly inadmissible materials, and requested an extension of the defense's Rule 16 and exhibit deadlines along with an order precluding the government from using certain Rule 16 materials produced after the court-ordered deadline.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\nTEL +1 212.408.2500 FAX +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\nAUSTIN BRUSSELS DALLAS DUBAI HOUSTON LONDON\n\nNEW YORK PALO ALTO RIYADH SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE WASHINGTON\n\nApril 28, 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 regarding certain issues with the government's trial exhibit and document productions. In light of those issues, we request (i) an extension of the deadline for the production of defense Rule 16 materials and trial exhibits and (ii) to preclude the government from introducing late-produced materials into evidence at trial.\n\nOn April 10, 2024, the Court entered a schedule for pre-trial discovery and disclosures. *See*  ECF No. 275. Under that schedule, the government was to complete its production of Rule 16 materials by April 10, 2024 and to produce its exhibits by April 22, 2024. *See id.* The defense is to produce its Rule 16 materials by May 6 and to produce trial exhibits and a witness list by May 10, 2024. *See id.*\n\n## **I. The Government's Production of \"Exhibits\"**\n\nThe government waited until the very last minute to produce its exhibits. At exactly midnight on April 23, counsel received a link to an FTP site that purportedly contained the government's exhibits. Despite using the resources and bandwidth of a large law firm, it took the better part of two days for those exhibits to completely download from the government's FTP site. A cursory examination revealed that the \"exhibits\" consisted of *over 12,000 files*. Counsel asked the government if it was also going to provide an exhibit list but received no response.\n\nIf there were any doubt that this was a \"document dump\" rather than a considered list of materials the government reasonably anticipates using at trial, that has been dispelled by our preliminary examination of those files over the last few days. The government's \"exhibits\" consist of, among other things:\n\n- 20 exhibits consisting solely of photographs of exhibit stickers (GXCT 1 through 20).\n- At least *357* photos of the Mahwah, New Jersey facility (GX NJ 1 through 357).\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 2 - April 28, 2024\n\n- *717* purported loan agreements related to one of the \"farms\" (GX 2001-2717).\n- An empty folder (GXBR 250).\n- A letter from the government to the Court, which is plainly not admissible (GXGTR 873).\n- An email from a third-party to one of the AUSAs (GXAS 138), as well as an email between one of the AUSAs and a paralegal (GX 243).\n- An FBI 302 (GX 237), which does not appear admissible for any purpose.\n- Numerous communications and chats which raise potential hearsay and other issues (*See, e.g.*, GX 301-325).\n\nMoreover, many of the exhibits were produced without Bates numbers, making it difficult and time-consuming to determine (i) where (or if) these documents were previously produced in discovery and (ii) if they were originally attached to or associated with other documents.\n\nTo be sure, we recognize and agree that the parties should have *some* degree of latitude in overmarking (or undermarking) potential trial exhibits. But it defies logic to think the government- --four years into an investigation and less than a month before trial---cannot reasonably narrow down its exhibits to less than 12,000 (or even 1,000 files), even when its case in chief is expected to take six weeks.\n\nIn making arguments for defense disclosures prior to trial, the government repeatedly emphasized the need reciprocity in discovery, including in connection with the production of trial exhibits. See 3/31/24 Ltr. from Gov't to Court, ECF. No. 255 (\"3/31 Ltr.\") at 1 (twice seeking a \"*mutual* pretrial disclosure schedule\"); *id.* at 3 n.5 (\"This reciprocal obligation applies to defense exhibits as well.\").\n\n<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span>But given the government has the burden of proof at all times, the defense's assessment of items it intends to use in its case-in-chief (and which are thus discoverable under Rule 16(b[\\)](#page-1-0)<sup>1</sup> and potential defense exhibits), is necessarily tied to the defense's assessment of the government's theories and likely proof.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span>[<sup>1</sup>](#page-1-1) *See* Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 16(b)(1)(A) (requiring the defense to produce only documents and objects that are \"within the defendant's possession, custody, or control; *and* [that] the defendant intends to use . . . in the defendant's case-in-chief at trial\").\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 3 - April 28, 2024\n\n $-3-$\nApril 28, 2024\n\nThe government's document dump makes that assessment all the more time consuming and next to impossible to do in the next week, and valuable time has already been lost simply downloading the documents.\n\nIndeed, under the circumstances, we believe seeking an adjournment of the trial would not be unreasonable. However, we request more limited relief for now. Specifically, we respectfully request that (i) the Court order the government to re-produce a set of trial exhibits (along with an exhibit list) that is reasonably anticipates using in its case-in-chief by noon on May 1, 2024 (nine days after the original April 22 deadline) and (ii) correspondingly extend the deadline for defense Rule 16, defense exhibits, and defense witness lists by nine days, i.e., to May 15 for defense Rule 16 materials and May 19 for the defendants' trial exhibits and witness list.\n\n### **II. The Government's Continuing Rule 16 Productions**\n\nFurther, despite the April 10 deadline for government Rule 16 materials, the government has continued to produce such materials, even where it is clear the government had possession, custody, or control of those materials well before April 10, 2024. For example, on April 19, nine days after the deadline, the government produced over *1,600* photographs taken during a search warrant executed on March 15, 2023, i.e., over a year before, in Connecticut. USAO\\_000298224- 000299868. Late last week, the government produced over almost 300 non-searchable pdf pages of materials from between 2017-2019 responsive to the Court's Foxhunt order. The defense is continuing to review other \"Rule 16\" productions from late last week and may identify additional materials pre-dating the April 10 deadline.\n\nThere is no reason why, weeks after the April 10 deadline, the government should still be producing Rule 16 materials that it has had since well before that deadline. For now, the Court should preclude the government from introducing USAO\\_000298224-000299868 in its case-inchief, and we reserve all rights to move to preclude additional materials as we review the government's productions from last week (and any future \"Rule 16\" productions).\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Brendan F. Quigley Brendan F. Quigley","body_zh":"30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\n电话 +1 212.408.2500 传真 +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\n奥斯汀 布鲁塞尔 达拉斯 迪拜 休斯敦 伦敦\n\n纽约 帕洛阿尔托 利雅得 旧金山 新加坡 华盛顿\n\n2024年4月28日\n\nBrendan F. Quigley（布伦丹·F·奎格利） 电话：2124082520 传真：2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n500 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尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们在本案中代表 Yanping Wang（王雁平）。我们致信就政府方审判物证及文件出示中的若干问题提出意见。鉴于这些问题，我们请求：(i) 延长辩方依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条材料及审判物证的出示截止期限；(ii) 禁止政府方在审判中将迟延出示的材料引入作为证据。\n\n2024年4月10日，法院就审前证据开示与披露作出了时间表裁定。参见 ECF No. 275。根据该时间表，政府方应于2024年4月10日前完成其第16条材料的出示，并于2024年4月22日前出示其物证。参见同上。辩方应于5月6日前出示其第16条材料，并于2024年5月10日前出示审判物证及证人名单。参见同上。\n\n一、政府方出示“物证”之情况\n\n政府方一直拖延至最后一刻才出示其物证。在4月23日整整午夜时分，辩护律师收到了一个据称包含政府方物证的 FTP 站点链接。尽管动用了大型律师事务所的资源和带宽，从政府方的 FTP 站点完全下载这些物证仍花费了近两天的大部分时间。粗略审查显示，这些“物证”包含超过 12,000 个文件。辩护律师询问政府方是否还会提供物证清单，但未获任何回应。\n\n如果说之前对于这究竟属于“文件倾倒”还是政府方合理预期在审判中使用的经过审慎考量的材料清单尚存疑问，那么我们在过去几天对这些文件的初步审查已彻底消除了这一疑问。政府方的“物证”除其他材料外，还包含：\n\n- 仅由物证标签照片组成的 20 份物证（GXCT 1 至 20）。\n- 至少 357 张关于 Mahwah, New Jersey（新泽西州马瓦）设施的照片（GX NJ 1 至 357）。\n\n托雷斯法官阁下 - 2 - 2024年4月28日\n\n- 717 份与其中一个“农场”相关的所谓借款协议（GX 2001-2717）。\n- 一个空文件夹（GXBR 250）。\n- 一封政府方致法院的信函，该信函显属不可采纳之证据（GXGTR 873）。\n- 一名第三方发送给一名 AUSA（联邦助理检察官）的电子邮件（GXAS 138），以及一名联邦助理检察官与一名律师助理之间的电子邮件（GX 243）。\n- 一份 FBI 302 表格（GX 237），其在任何目的下均不具有可采性。\n- 大量引发潜在传闻证据及其他问题的通讯记录与聊天记录（例如参见 GX 301-325）。\n\n此外，许多出示的物证未附有 Bates 编码（贝茨编号），导致难以且耗时去确定：(i) 这些文件此前在证据开示中于何处（或是否曾）被出示；以及 (ii) 它们最初是否附属于或关联于其他文件。\n\n诚然，我们理解并认同双方在对潜在审判物证进行过量标记（或不足标记）方面应具有一定程度的自由裁量空间。但在调查已历时四年且距离开庭不到一个月的情况下，即使政府方的主要案情陈述预计将耗时六周，认为政府方无法将其物证合理缩减至少于 12,000 个（乃至 1,000 个文件）的观点，依然是违背逻辑的。\n\n在就审前辩方披露提出主张时，政府方反复强调证据开示对等性的必要性，包括在审判物证出示方面。参见 2024年3月31日政府方致法院信函，ECF No. 255（《3月31日信函》）第1页（两次寻求“相互审前披露时间表”）；同上，第3页脚注5（“该对等义务同样适用于辩方物证。”）。\n\n但鉴于举证责任始终由政府方承担，辩方对其拟在主要案情陈述中使用的项目（从而根据第 16(b) 条属可开示范围，参见脚注1，以及潜在辩方物证）的评估，必然与辩方对政府方案情主张和可能出示的证据的评估紧密相连。\n\n脚注1：参见 Fed. R. Crim. P.（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第 16(b)(1)(A) 条（规定辩方仅须出示“属于被告人占有、羁押或控制之下；且被告人打算在审判的主要案情陈述中使用”的文件和物件）。\n\n托雷斯法官阁下 - 3 - 2024年4月28日\n\n- 3 -\n2024年4月28日\n\n政府方倾倒文件的做法使得这一评估变得极其耗时，且在接下来的一周内几乎不可能完成，而且仅仅为了下载这些文件就已经浪费了宝贵的时间。\n\n事实上，在此种情形下，我们认为申请延期审判并非不合理。然而，我们目前仅请求更为有限的救济。具体而言，我们谨请求：(i) 法院命令政府方在2024年5月1日中午前（即原4月22日截止日期后九天），重新出示一套其合理预期将在主要案情陈述中使用的审判物证（附带物证清单）；以及 (ii) 相应地将辩方第16条材料、辩方物证及辩方证人名单的截止日期延长九天，即辩方第16条材料延长至5月15日，被告方的审判物证和证人名单延长至5月19日。\n\n二、政府方持续出示第16条材料之情况\n\n此外，尽管政府方第16条材料的截止日期为4月10日，但政府方仍在持续出示此类材料，即使在显然属于政府方早在2024年4月10日之前就已占有、羁押或控制这些材料的情况下亦是如此。例如，在截止日期九天后的4月19日，政府方出示了超过 1,600 张于2023年3月15日（即一年多前）在康涅狄格州执行搜查令期间拍摄的照片。USAO_000298224-000299868。上周晚些时候，政府方出示了近 300 页不可检索的 PDF 页面材料，这些材料来自2017年至2019年期间，属于响应该法院关于 Foxhunt（猎狐行动）命令的文件。辩方目前正继续审查上周晚些时候收到的其他“第16条”出示材料，并可能会识别出更多早于4月10日截止日期的材料。\n\n在4月10日截止日期过去数周之后，政府方没有任何理由仍在出示其早在该截止日期之前就已持有的第16条材料。目前，法院应当禁止政府方在其主要案情陈述中引入 USAO_000298224-000299868 号材料，且在我们审查政府方上周的出示材料（以及未来任何“第16条”出示材料）的过程中，我们保留提出动议排除更多材料的所有权利。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/签名/ Brendan F. Quigley\nBrendan F. Quigley","key_entities":["Torres","Analisa Torres","Yanping Wang","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":275,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1114,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:24:42"}