DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
670 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
6
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (motion in limine or response to motion)
File Size:
670 KB
Summary
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 380) from October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text is a legal argument citing multiple precedents (Boyle, Rodriguez, Hill, Watts, Carneglia) to support the exclusion of evidence related to the government's charging decisions. The argument asserts that such evidence is hearsay, irrelevant, and potentially confusing to jurors.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Powell | Subject of case law |
Mentioned in citation of United States v. Boyle; person who allegedly killed Hydell
|
| Hydell | Victim in case law |
Mentioned in citation of United States v. Boyle
|
| Rodriguez | Defendant in case law |
Subject of United States v. Rodriguez citation
|
| Hill | Defendant in case law |
Subject of United States v. Hill citation
|
| Watts | Defendant in case law |
Subject of United States v. Watts citation
|
| Carneglia | Defendant in case law |
Subject of United States v. Carneglia citation
|
| Re | Defendant in case law |
Subject of United States v. Re citation
|
| White | Defendant in case law |
Subject of United States v. White citation in footnote
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Court where document was filed (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) and venue for cited cases
|
|
| United States District Court (E.D.N.Y.) |
Venue for cited cases (Hill, Watts, Carneglia)
|
|
| Kings County District Attorney's Office |
Mentioned in the summary of United States v. Hill regarding charging decisions
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Mentioned in footnote regarding appellate rulings on charging decisions
|
|
| 7th Circuit Court of Appeals |
Mentioned in citation (United States v. Re)
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in citations
|
|
|
Location of District Attorney's office mentioned in citation
|
Key Quotes (4)
"the government's charging decisions are not proper subjects for cross-examination and argument."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
Quote #1
"Evidence related to the government's charging decisions may be excluded at trial based on lack of relevance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
Quote #2
"precluding evidence or cross examination of a detective regarding the Kings County District Attorney's Office decision to question but not charge the defendant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
Quote #3
"Although there is no per se bar to admission of charging decisions, the Second Circuit has permitted such evidence under narrow circumstances not present here"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document