DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
698 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
698 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Maxwell's complaint regarding the unsealing of civil case filings. The author contends that any resulting unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case is not a matter for immediate appeal, but rather an issue that can be reviewed and remedied after a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including Hitchcock, Mohawk Indus., United States v. Sabhnani, and United States v. Elfgeeh, to support the position that post-judgment appeals are the proper venue to address concerns of publicity-biased juries.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a criminal case, complaining that unsealing filings in a civil case may result in unfai...
|
| Sabhnani | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Sabhnani' as an example of a post-judgment appeal evaluating publici...
|
| Elfgeeh | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Elfgeeh' as an example of a post-judgment appeal evaluating publicit...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned in a hypothetical scenario regarding a decision to permit modification of a Protective Order.
|
| Hitchcock | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mohawk Indus. | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'cf. Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 109'.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citations 'United States v. Sabhnani' and 'United States v. Elfgeeh'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2008
Post-judgment appeal in the case of United States v. Elfgeeh, evaluating whether publicity biased trial jurors.
2d Cir.
2010
Post-judgment appeal in the case of United States v. Sabhnani, evaluating whether publicity biased the venire.
2d Cir.
Maxwell's trial, where a jury's potential bias due to disclosure of civil case material is discussed as a hypothetical future event.
Relationships (1)
The document presents a hypothetical scenario where Judge Nathan would preside over a matter related to Maxwell's case, specifically concerning a Protective Order.
Key Quotes (3)
"any alleged incursions on criminal defendants’ rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing order effectively unreviewable on appeal"Source
— Hitchcock case precedent
(Cited as a reason why an appeal from the unsealing of a competency evaluation is not immediately reviewable.)
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
Quote #1
"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by defendant"Source
— Hitchcock case precedent
(Cited to argue that a court's refusal to seal documents is not immediately appealable.)
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
Quote #2
"intrude[] on the confidentiality of attorney-client communications"Source
— Mohawk Indus. case precedent
(Used to describe the effect of orders to disclose privileged information, which are held to be not immediately appealable.)
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,702 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page16 of 24
appeal from unsealing of competency evaluation because “any alleged incursions
on criminal defendants’ rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing
order effectively unreviewable on appeal”); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district
court’s refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because “[r]eversal
after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by
defendant); cf. Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 109 (holding that orders to disclose
privileged information are not immediately appealable even though they “intrude[]
on the confidentiality of attorney-client communications”).
20. To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a
civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, such a concern
is not an issue that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Indeed, that very issue has been reviewed by this Court in multiple cases on post-
judgment appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 232-34 (2d
Cir. 2010) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased the
venire); United States v. Elfgeeh, 515 F.3d 100, 128-31 (2d Cir. 2008) (evaluating
on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial jurors). Should the Court
determine that the jury at Maxwell’s trial was biased based on disclosure of
material in a civil case, and that such material would not have been unsealed had
Judge Nathan permitted modification of the Protective Order, then vacatur of the
defendant’s conviction – if warranted – will adequately vindicate the defendant’s
15
DOJ-OGR-00019358
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document