>>>556880
you are boss
https:// www.
justice. gov/usao/page/file/1030666/download
<telling us how to store data we all need to at the very least read pg 139-147 if we are storing usable data
C. Responding to Demands for Additional Data Management or Support
Other than demanding that prosecutors locate spec
ific data within a production, the complex
nature of electronic data may provide defense attorneys a number of other opportunities to accuse the
government of misfeasance. In some recent cases, defense attorneys have asserted that the government
has someho
w technically mishandled ESI, asked the government to cull material from a production,
demanded paper files that stand apart from ESI, and pleaded for additional data manipulation in support
of their defense theories. These claims all highlight the need fo
r care and diligence when managing large
sets of ESI through all phases of investigations and subsequent discovery productions.
For example, when prosecutors first receive large troves of data, either through the execution of a
search warrant, from a grand
jury subpoena, or other sources, they ought to devise and employ methods to
identify and extract relevant material from the heaps of extraneous data that will inevitably accompany
the production. That is usually accomplished through a combination of employing date restrictions,
custodian identifications, and keyword searches. Culling irrelevant data from your mass of evidence is
crucial so
that prosecutors can avoid spending time reading useless personal email or spam rather than
communications between tar
gets. After this process, however it is employed, two buckets of data will
remain: (1) relevant data that the prosecution team will need to process further, then search, review
, and
investigate; and, (2) irrelevant data that is not processed, but that the
prosecution ought to maintain in its
pristine form.
For the first time in nearly three decades, the Supreme Court has waded back into the waters of
denaturalization. Last term, the Court
decided
Maslenjak v. United States
,
watch the waters
IV. Post
-
Maslenjak
Jurisprudence
Since th
e Court’s
Maslenjak
decision was released in late June 2017, a handful of courts have
wrestled with its impact on both criminal and civil denaturalization.
32
An examination of these cases
gives a sense of how courts will interpret the Supreme Court’s decisi
on and provides lessons for
prosecuting denaturalization cases post
-
Maslenjak
VI. Conclusion
Ultimately, Maslenjak raises the bar for the government to convict naturalized citizens for making
false statements in the naturalization application process, as the government must now establish the causal
link between false statements and the decision to grant citizenship. As the above cases demonstrate, post
-
Maslenjak jurisprudence is moving swiftly across the
country. If you want to discuss any of the foregoing matters or you have any questions regarding the way in which OIL
-DCS or HRSP can be of assistance in addressing the causation standard set forth in
Maslenjak, please contact any of the authors or email
denaturalization@usdoj.gov
.
B. The Objective or Subjective Nature of the “Reasonable Cause to Believe”