DOJ-OGR-00001635.jpg
789 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
5
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
789 KB
Summary
This is a legal letter dated July 21, 2020, from Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. The attorney, representing defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, requests that the court issue an order prohibiting the U.S. Government and its affiliates from making extrajudicial statements about the case, arguing such statements are prejudicial and violate Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Pagliuca | Attorney |
Attorney from Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C, author of the letter on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
The recipient of the letter, a judge for the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Client |
The client on whose behalf the letter is written, and the defendant in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'.
|
| DePasquale | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979)'.
|
| Sheppard | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966)'.
|
| Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
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 | company |
The law firm representing Ghislaine Maxwell, as indicated on the letterhead.
|
| 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.
|
| Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution (United States) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited as a source of legal precedent regarding pretrial publicity.
|
| Gannett Co. | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Gannett Co. v. DePasquale'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-07-21
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter with the court requesting an order to prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity by the government.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
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 judicial district where the case is filed.
|
Relationships (2)
The letter states, 'On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request...'
The case is titled 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell', indicating the Government is prosecuting Ms. Maxwell.
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 from prejudicial media coverage.)
DOJ-OGR-00001635.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 request for an order controlling statements made by parties involved in the trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00001635.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,370 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 27 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 7
HADDON 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).
DOJ-OGR-00001635
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document