DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg

717 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing (motion for evidentiary hearing/suppression)
File Size: 717 KB
Summary

This document is page 16 (filed page 21 of 23) of a defense motion in the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The defense argues for an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged coordination between the government and a redacted third party who provided Maxwell's 2016 civil deposition transcripts to 'stir up a criminal prosecution.' The motion requests the suppression of evidence obtained from this redacted party, specifically the April and July 2016 depositions, and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Movant
Requesting an evidentiary hearing and suppression of evidence regarding the government's coordination with a redacted...
The Prosecutor Government Representative
Accused of potentially knowing (or being reckless in not knowing) about a redacted party's efforts to stir up prosecu...
[REDACTED] Witness/Informant (Implied)
Name redacted; approached the prosecutor's office to 'stir up a criminal prosecution' and 'dangled the deposition tra...

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.)
The court handling Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
Prosecutor's Office
Received information and depositions from the redacted party.
Chemical Bank
Referenced in legal argument regarding 'Chemical Bank collusion' (referring to a legal standard/precedent).
DOJ-OGR
Source of the document (footer stamp).

Timeline (3 events)

2021-02-04
Filing of Document 134
S.D.N.Y. Court
Defense Counsel
April 2016
Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell
Unknown
July 2016
Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell
Unknown

Locations (1)

Location Context
Southern District of New York (cited in case law).

Relationships (1)

The Prosecutor Alleged Collusion/Coordination [REDACTED]
Defense argues the prosecutor coordinated with the redacted party prior to the grand jury subpoena.

Key Quotes (3)

"prosecutor knew (or was reckless in not knowing) that [REDACTED] had previously approached his office... in an effort to stir up a criminal prosecution and dangled the deposition transcripts as a carrot"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
Quote #1
"suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
Quote #2
"no Chemical Bank collusion had occurred"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document