DOJ-OGR-00003081.jpg
800 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/opinion)
File Size:
800 KB
Summary
This document is page 147 of a court filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal analysis regarding perjury charges, specifically discussing the legal standard for 'fundamental ambiguity' in questioning. The text cites various precedents to argue that a perjury count stands unless a question is so ambiguous that people of ordinary intellect cannot agree on its meaning, noting that simple amenability to multiple meanings is not a sufficient defense.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sampson | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Sampson
|
| Lighte | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Lighte
|
| Markiewicz | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Markiewicz
|
| Sarwari | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Sarwari
|
| Farmer | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Farmer
|
| Strohm | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Strohm
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Heading indicates SDNY (PAE)
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals cited frequently
|
|
| 4th Cir. |
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited
|
|
| 10th Cir. |
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals cited
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR)
|
Key Quotes (2)
"A question is “fundamentally ambiguous” when “it is not a phrase with a meaning about which [people] of ordinary intellect could agree, nor one which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer unless it were defined at the time it were sought and offered as testimony.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003081.jpg
Quote #1
"“Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence demonstrates the defendant understood the question in context and gave a knowingly false answer.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003081.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document