DOJ-OGR-00010703.jpg
666 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
666 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 25, 2022, argues that the Court should allow victims of Maxwell's sex trafficking conspiracy to speak at her sentencing. The author contends that allowing victim impact statements provides a cathartic benefit, promotes transparency regarding the conspiracy, and is a legally recognized right for victims. The document cites legal precedent to support the claim that a victim's right to speak is important regardless of its effect on the final sentence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Conspirator |
Mentioned in the context of "Maxwell’s conspiracy" and as the defendant whose victims should be allowed to speak at s...
|
| Paul G. Cassell | Author |
Cited as the author of an article titled "In Defense of Victim Impact Statements".
|
| Degenhardt | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation "United States v. Degenhardt".
|
| De Alba Pagan | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation "United States v. De Alba Pagan".
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| parole board | government agency |
Mentioned as an entity that may waive requirements for victim impact statements.
|
| Court | government entity |
Referred to throughout the document as the body that should exercise discretion to hear victim impact statements.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes victims as "women who were sexually abused and trafficked by Maxwell’s conspiracy" and refers to them as "Maxwell's Victims".
Key Quotes (1)
"[E]ven if a victim has nothing to say that would directly alter the court’s sentence, a chance to speak still serves important purposes.... ‘[Victim] allocution is both a rite and a right.’"Source
— one federal district court
(Quoted as legal precedent to support the argument that victims should be allowed to speak at sentencing, regardless of the impact on the sentence itself.)
DOJ-OGR-00010703.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,004 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 675 Filed 06/25/22 Page 12 of 21
a late-filed victim impact statement, finding that the parole board may waive one or more requirements in order to further its policy of ensuring that crime victims are treated with fairness, sensitivity and dignity).
III. The Court Should Exercise Its Discretionary Authority to Consider the Victim Impact on Women Who have Suffered from the Most Notorious Long-running Sex Trafficking Operation in Modern American History
In this case especially, the Court should exercise its broad discretion to hear and consider all information relevant to sentencing. First, allowing women who were sexually abused and trafficked by Maxwell’s conspiracy to speak will have an important cathartic benefit not only for the victims speaking, but for those who are unable to speak as well. Second, in this case in particular, too many unanswered questions remain about the scope and participants in this long-running wide-ranging sex trafficking conspiracy – leading many Americans to believe that authorities continue to hide the complete truth about what happened. Allowing all victims who wish to speak to do so publicly will promote transparency and help to dispel some of those concerns.
A. Prohibiting Maxwell’s Victims from Speaking Unfairly Denies Victims Important Cathartic Benefits
Allowing crime victims to speak at a defendant’s sentencing can have significant psychological and emotional benefits for those victims. See generally Paul G. Cassell, In Defense of Victim Impact Statements, 6 OHIO ST. J. OF CRIM. L. 611, 621–23 (2009). As one federal district court explained, “[E]ven if a victim has nothing to say that would directly alter the court’s sentence, a chance to speak still serves important purposes.... ‘[Victim] allocution is both a rite and a right.’” United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1349 (D. Utah. 2005) (quoting United States v. De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 129 (1st Cir. 1994)).
12
DOJ-OGR-00010703
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document