DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg
654 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
654 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 17, 2021, details a court's reasoning for excluding certain evidence from a trial involving Ms. Maxwell. The court argues that evidence proposed by the defense concerning the government's motives for the investigation—including a Miami Herald article and statements from Attorney General William Barr—would confuse and delay the trial, with its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value. The document suggests the defense should focus on the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial instead.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the individual being investigated and charged by the government in a trial.
|
| William Barr | Attorney General |
Statements from him are cited as evidence the defense wishes to use regarding the government's motives for investigat...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Miami Herald | Media company |
An article from this newspaper is mentioned as evidence the defense wants to introduce, which the Court plans to excl...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed in the footer, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
| The Court | Judicial Body |
Mentioned as the entity that will exclude certain evidence from the trial.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about government motives would confuse, delay, and expand it.
The document refers to government investigations into Ms. Maxwell, which the defense argues were "hasty" and not thorough.
two different states
investigators
law enforcement
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the "Miami Herald article".
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the government investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell, positioning them as opposing parties in a legal trial.
Key Quotes (1)
"hasty"Source
— defense
(The document notes the defense's argument that the government's investigation was "hasty" and not thorough.)
DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,665 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 24 22
LB1TMAX1
LB1TMAX1
1 substantially confuse and delay the trial. The evidence
2 outlined in the defense's papers, including who was interviewed
3 and when, what documents were subpoenaed and other details of
4 investigations in two different states and different time
5 periods would substantially expand the scope of the trial.
6 Exactly what steps investigators took is not a simple question,
7 of course. The government would likely present a contrary
8 account of events, leading to trials within trials on what law
9 enforcement did over the course of years. This prejudice would
10 substantially outweigh any minimum probative value that might
11 be gained from such a far-flung endeavor.
12 Third, as to prejudice, the evidence would be
13 cumulative, demonstrating that an investigation was "hasty" and
14 not thorough is at best repetitive of the defense's arguments
15 that the government collected insufficient evidence of guilt.
16 That point is made most clearly and directly by focusing on the
17 evidence or lack of evidence and credibility or lack of
18 credibility of the witnesses presented at trial.
19 The second piece of guidance I can provide now is that
20 the Court will exclude much of the evidence outlined in the
21 defense's papers of the government's alleged motives for
22 investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell. This evidence includes
23 but is not limited to the Miami Herald article, statements from
24 Attorney General William Barr and the like.
25 The evidence presented by the government in this trial
2 outlined in the defense's papers, including who was interviewed
3 and when, what documents were subpoenaed and other details of
4 investigations in two different states and different time
5 periods would substantially expand the scope of the trial.
6 Exactly what steps investigators took is not a simple question,
7 of course. The government would likely present a contrary
8 account of events, leading to trials within trials on what law
9 enforcement did over the course of years. This prejudice would
10 substantially outweigh any minimum probative value that might
11 be gained from such a far-flung endeavor.
12 Third, as to prejudice, the evidence would be
13 cumulative, demonstrating that an investigation was "hasty" and
14 not thorough is at best repetitive of the defense's arguments
15 that the government collected insufficient evidence of guilt.
16 That point is made most clearly and directly by focusing on the
17 evidence or lack of evidence and credibility or lack of
18 credibility of the witnesses presented at trial.
19 The second piece of guidance I can provide now is that
20 the Court will exclude much of the evidence outlined in the
21 defense's papers of the government's alleged motives for
22 investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell. This evidence includes
23 but is not limited to the Miami Herald article, statements from
24 Attorney General William Barr and the like.
25 The evidence presented by the government in this trial
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008404
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document