DOJ-OGR-00019490.jpg
803 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
5
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
803 KB
Summary
This document is a letter dated July 21, 2020, from attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. On behalf of his client, Ghislaine Maxwell, Pagliuca requests a court order to prohibit the government and its agents from making extrajudicial statements about her case. The letter argues that such statements are prejudicial and violate Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, citing legal precedents to support the court's authority to issue such an order.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Pagliuca | Attorney |
Author of the letter, representing Ghislaine Maxwell from the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Recipient of the letter, addressed as 'The Honorable Alison J. Nathan' of the United States District Court, Southern ...
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Client/Defendant |
The client on whose behalf the letter is written, defendant in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'.
|
| DePasquale |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979)'.
|
|
| Sheppard |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966)'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C | Law firm |
The law firm represented by Jeffrey Pagliuca, sending the letter on behalf of their client.
|
| United States District Court, Southern District of New York | Government agency |
The court where Judge Alison J. Nathan presides and where the case is being heard.
|
| The Government | Government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically the United States.
|
| Supreme Court | Government agency |
Cited as having directed trial judges on handling pretrial publicity.
|
| Gannett Co. | Company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Gannett Co. v. DePasquale'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-07-21
Filing of a letter requesting an order to prohibit extrajudicial statements.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN).
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
United States
Ghislaine Maxwell
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The address of the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
|
|
|
The city and state of the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
|
|
|
The address of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
|
|
|
The city and state of the United States District Court.
|
|
|
The specific federal court district where the case is filed.
|
Relationships (2)
The letter states, "On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request...", indicating a lawyer-client relationship.
The document is a filing in the criminal case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell', where Maxwell is the defendant and the United States is the prosecution.
Key Quotes (2)
"an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity."Source
— Gannett Co. v. DePasquale
(Cited to argue that the Court has a duty to safeguard the due process rights of the accused.)
DOJ-OGR-00019490.jpg
Quote #1
"such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function."Source
— Sheppard v. Maxwell
(Cited from a Supreme Court case to support the argument that trial judges should prevent prejudicial publicity.)
DOJ-OGR-00019490.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,379 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 202 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 7
HADDON
MORGAN
FOREMAN
MORGAN
FOREMAN
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C
Jeffrey Pagliuca
Jeffrey Pagliuca
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
July 21, 2020
VIA ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Local Criminal Rule 23.1
Dear Judge Nathan,
On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request that the Court enter an order prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case. Although Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, the Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the right to an impartial jury. This fundamental guarantee is part of a criminal defendant’s basic right to a fair trial, which requires that a defendant must be judged by a jury of her peers based on evidence presented at trial, not in the media. The Court, to safeguard the due process rights of the accused, has “an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). This District has given effect to this Sixth Amendment right through Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court exercise its express power under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) and enter an Order requiring compliance with that rule to prevent further unwarranted and prejudicial pretrial publicity by the Government, its agents, and lawyers for alleged witnesses.
Legal Standard
More than fifty years ago, warning of the danger of pretrial publicity to fair trials, the Supreme Court directed trial judges to take “such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (emphasis added).
App.031
DOJ-OGR-00019490
DOJ-OGR-00019490
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document