DOJ-OGR-00005817.jpg
687 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (government opposition to motion in limine)
File Size:
687 KB
Summary
This is page 34 of a legal filing (Document 397) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's motion to exclude certain evidence under Rule 404(b), asserting they provided sufficient notice and Jencks Act materials. The text cites Second Circuit case law to define relevant evidence and justify the admission of uncharged crimes if they are inextricably intertwined with the charged offense.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Moves to exclude evidence under Rule 404(b); implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Provided discovery and Jencks Act materials; argues against excluding evidence.
|
| Gonzalez | Cited Case Defendant |
United States v. Gonzalez (Legal precedent)
|
| Coonan | Cited Case Defendant |
United States v. Coonan (Legal precedent)
|
| Carboni | Cited Case Defendant |
Cited for legal precedent regarding 'story of the crime'.
|
| Quinones | Cited Case Defendant |
United States v. Quinones (Legal precedent)
|
| Baez | Cited Case Defendant |
United States v. Baez (Legal precedent)
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution team (DOJ/US Attorney's Office)
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals providing legal precedent
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (referenced in Bates stamp)
|
Relationships (1)
Government opposing defendant's motion to exclude evidence.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Government also provided the defense with Jencks Act materials for all trial witnesses that same day, including detailed notes and reports of the Government’s interviews of the witness referenced in the letter."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005817.jpg
Quote #1
"The defendant now moves to exclude this evidence, arguing, among other things, that the Government has not provided sufficient notice of the evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005817.jpg
Quote #2
"Relevant evidence is “not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005817.jpg
Quote #3
"The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are “not considered other crimes evidence under” Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005817.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document