DOJ-OGR-00015088.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 803 Filed 08/05/25
Page 2 of 9
hearsay-laden grand jury transcripts, which contain statements presented in secret
and never challenged by the adversarial process. Maxwell has never been allowed to
review those transcripts even though the government did not oppose her recent
request to do so.

The government seeks to unseal the grand jury transcripts, citing "historical
interest" without regard for how that release will affect Maxwell's privacy interests,
her pending Petition, and any future litigation. The government's Memorandum
(Dkt. 796) cloaks itself in In re Craig, but that case emphasized that disclosure
requires the most careful judgment and that "the public's curiosity in a defendant's
secret conduct at a grand jury hearing cannot eclipse the right the defendant has to
secrecy and overwhelm his objection to public discourse." 131 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir.
1997).

Because this is ongoing litigation in a criminal case involving a living
defendant with existing legal remedies, the government's motion should be denied.

II. THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ESTABLISH "SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES" WARRANTING DISCLOSURE OF GRAND
JURY MATERIALS IN AN ONGOING CASE

There is a tradition in the United States that is "older than the Nation itself,"
that grand jury proceedings shall remain secret. In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 101-02
(quoting In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489, 491 (2d Cir.1973)). This tradition of secrecy is
codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). The rule of secrecy is not without
exceptions, however, and Rule 6(e)(3) lists several exceptions. The Second Circuit
has additionally recognized that there are certain "special circumstances" in which

MARKUS/MOSS
2
DOJ-OGR-00015088