DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
806 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
806 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a prosecution filing arguing against a motion by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to sever perjury charges from other substantive counts (Mann Act). The prosecution contends that trying the counts together is judicially efficient, not unduly prejudicial, and that the defendant's claims of prejudice are generalized and can be managed with jury instructions. The filing also dismisses the defendant's concern that her attorneys from a prior civil suit might be called to testify, arguing it does not meet the threshold for disqualification.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant arguing for severance of perjury counts, with her credibility being a central issue.
|
| Werner |
Cited in a legal case (Werner, 620 F.2d at 929) regarding prejudice in trials.
|
|
| Rivera |
Cited in a legal case (Rivera, 546 F.3d at 254) regarding "generalized claim[s] of prejudice".
|
|
| Murray |
Cited in a legal case (Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co.) discussing the advocate-witness rule.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as noting that three of the defendant's attorneys had no involvement in a related civil suit.
|
| Met. Life Ins. Co. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation 'Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co.'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Discussion of the defendant's motion to sever perjury counts from Mann Act counts for trial.
A prior defamation suit involving the defendant, from which the perjury counts originate.
Relationships (1)
The document discusses the defendant's relationship with her counsel from a prior defamation suit and the possibility of them having to testify, which could deny her counsel of her choice.
Key Quotes (5)
"such evidence might lead to evidence . . . which would justify forfeiture"Source
— Unknown
(Quoted as part of a legal argument regarding evidence from a defamation case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
Quote #1
"will necessarily introduce into the trial the issue of Ms. Maxwell’s credibility."Source
— Defendant (Ms. Maxwell)
(Quoted from the defendant's motion (Def. Mot. 5 at 13) as the reason for requesting severance of perjury counts.)
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
Quote #2
"adverse effect of being tried for two crimes rather than one"Source
— Werner, 620 F.2d at 929
(A legal principle cited to argue that being tried for multiple crimes is not inherently prejudicial.)
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
Quote #3
"generalized claim[s] of prejudice,"Source
— Rivera, 546 F.3d at 254
(Cited to characterize the defendant's argument for severance as insufficient.)
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
Quote #4
"on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client."Source
— N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b)
(Quoted from a rule of professional conduct regarding when a lawyer may be disqualified for being a witness.)
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document