DOJ-OGR-00010745.jpg
732 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (sentencing memorandum/order)
File Size:
732 KB
Summary
This document is a court order from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge rules that while the Defendant challenges whether Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant meet the statutory definition of 'crime victims' under the CVRA, the Court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to consider information at sentencing. Consequently, the Court permits these four women to provide written submissions for the sentencing record but denies their requests to make in-person statements.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Contesting victim status of four individuals; subject of sentencing. (Implicitly Ghislaine Maxwell based on case numb...
|
| Maria Farmer | Potential Victim/Witness |
Permitted to submit written statement for sentencing; denied in-person statement.
|
| Sarah Ransome | Potential Victim/Witness |
Permitted to submit written statement for sentencing; denied in-person statement.
|
| Teresa Helm | Potential Victim/Witness |
Permitted to submit written statement for sentencing; denied in-person statement.
|
| Juliette Bryant | Potential Victim/Witness |
Permitted to submit written statement for sentencing; denied in-person statement.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
The Court issuing the order (implied by case header).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in case law).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-06-24
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in legal citations.
|
Relationships (4)
Defendant contests Farmer's status as a 'crime victim' regarding incidents described.
Defendant contests Ransome's status as a 'crime victim'.
Defendant contests Helm's status as a 'crime victim'.
Defendant contests Bryant's status as a 'crime victim'.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Defendant contests whether the remaining four individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—are 'crime victims' within the meaning of the CVRA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010745.jpg
Quote #1
"the Court need not resolve this question because 'the sentencing court’s discretion is largely unlimited either as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010745.jpg
Quote #2
"Accordingly, the Court, exercising its discretion under § 3661, will permit Maria Farmer, Ransome, Helm, and Bryant to be reasonably heard at sentencing through written submissions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010745.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court will, however, exercise its discretion and deny their requests to make an in-person statement, to the extent they so request."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010745.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,172 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 682 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 4
The Defendant contests whether the remaining four individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah
Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—are “crime victims” within the meaning of the
CVRA. The Defendant contends, among other things, that the record does not establish that they
were under the relevant statutory age at the time of the incidents they describe or that the conduct
occurred within the time period charged in the indictment and established at trial. However, the
Court need not resolve this question because “the sentencing court’s discretion is largely
unlimited either as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may
come.” United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Indeed, 18
U.S.C. § 3661 provides that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the
background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the
United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”
See, e.g., United States v. Garigen, No. 21-112, 2022 WL 258568, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2022)
(summary order) (finding no due process violation in allowing individual to speak at sentencing
even assuming they lacked “an express right . . . under the [CVRA],” because “the court was
certainly within its power to permit them to speak” under § 3661 and defendant “clearly was free
to object or respond to any of the statements that [individuals] made during her sentencing, and
the district court was permitted to consider all of these statements as relevant in formulating a
sentence” (cleaned up)).
Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—are “crime victims” within the meaning of the
CVRA. The Defendant contends, among other things, that the record does not establish that they
were under the relevant statutory age at the time of the incidents they describe or that the conduct
occurred within the time period charged in the indictment and established at trial. However, the
Court need not resolve this question because “the sentencing court’s discretion is largely
unlimited either as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may
come.” United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Indeed, 18
U.S.C. § 3661 provides that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the
background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the
United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”
See, e.g., United States v. Garigen, No. 21-112, 2022 WL 258568, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2022)
(summary order) (finding no due process violation in allowing individual to speak at sentencing
even assuming they lacked “an express right . . . under the [CVRA],” because “the court was
certainly within its power to permit them to speak” under § 3661 and defendant “clearly was free
to object or respond to any of the statements that [individuals] made during her sentencing, and
the district court was permitted to consider all of these statements as relevant in formulating a
sentence” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, the Court, exercising its discretion under § 3661, will permit Maria Farmer,
Ransome, Helm, and Bryant to be reasonably heard at sentencing through written submissions.
The Court will therefore allow their written submissions to be part of the record and consider
them for what they appropriately may be considered. The Court will, however, exercise its
discretion and deny their requests to make an in-person statement, to the extent they so request.
Ransome, Helm, and Bryant to be reasonably heard at sentencing through written submissions.
The Court will therefore allow their written submissions to be part of the record and consider
them for what they appropriately may be considered. The Court will, however, exercise its
discretion and deny their requests to make an in-person statement, to the extent they so request.
2
DOJ-OGR-00010745
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document