DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Seeking redactions of statements; request denied. (Context implies Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number and victim ...
|
| Annie Farmer | Victim/Witness |
Defendant cited issues regarding her trial testimony.
|
| Kate | Victim/Witness |
Defendant cited issues regarding her trial testimony.
|
| Giuffre | Victim/Witness |
Virginia Giuffre; Defendant cited concerns about her credibility.
|
| Dr. Sours Edwards | Defendant in cited case |
Mentioned in case citation United States v. Sours Edwards regarding sentencing documents.
|
| Alcantara | Defendant in cited case |
Mentioned in case citation United States v. Alcantara regarding First Amendment rights.
|
| Sattar | Defendant in cited case |
Mentioned in case citation United States v. Sattar.
|
| Avenatti | Defendant in cited case |
Mentioned in case citation United States v. Avenatti regarding sealing documents.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Denying the request for redactions.
|
|
| Government |
Mentioned regarding disclosure of issues.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, cited in case law.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (implied location of the court and cited cases).
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant seeking redactions regarding Farmer's testimony.
Defendant citing concerns about credibility with respect to Giuffre.
Key Quotes (4)
"This request for redactions is denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court has little difficulty concluding that the statements at issue are judicial documents to which the common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access attach."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
Quote #2
"The Defendant’s proffered justifications for sealing elide the reality that the decision-maker at this stage of proceedings is not a jury but the Court..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
Quote #3
"...the only accomplishment of the proposed redactions will be to obscure information from public view."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,153 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 682 Filed 06/24/22 Page 3 of 4
The Defendant also seeks partial or full redactions of some of the statements, citing references to issues that were not disclosed by the Government or revealed during the victims’ trial testimony (with respect to Annie Farmer and Kate); concerns about credibility (with respect to Giuffre); and due process concerns (with respect to the remaining individuals) Def.’s Ltr. 5–7. This request for redactions is denied.
The Court has little difficulty concluding that the statements at issue are judicial documents to which the common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access attach. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[A] qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches to sentencing proceedings.”); United States v. Sours Edwards, No. 1:19-CR-64 (GHW), 2022 WL 1158561, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2022) (“[These documents] are judicial documents. They were presented to the Court in connection with Dr. Sours Edwards’ sentencing.”); United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“These documents were submitted to the Court to provide information with respect to the crucial judicial function of sentencing [and accordingly are judicial documents].”).
The Court need not determine the weight of the presumption in favor of public access in this context, “because, whatever weight the presumption has here, there are . . . no countervailing interests that would justify sealing.” United States v. Avenatti, 550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 48 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The Defendant’s proffered justifications for sealing elide the reality that the decision-maker at this stage of proceedings is not a jury but the Court, which is fully capable of considering the submissions for what they are worth and without prejudice. Moreover, the proposed redactions would not safeguard the interests the Defendant points to. The decisionmaker—the Court—will have access to unredacted copies of the documents, so the only accomplishment of the proposed redactions will be to obscure information from public view. As
3
DOJ-OGR-00010746
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document