DOJ-OGR-00019419.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of Case 20-3061 dated September 24, 2020, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, countering the government's position. The author argues that the government misinterprets and improperly relies on two precedent cases, United States v. Caparros (1986) and United States v. Pappas (1996), regarding the appealability of protective orders. The document specifically analyzes the Caparros case to demonstrate why it is distinguishable from Ms. Maxwell's current situation.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned as the subject of arguments being misunderstood by the government.
|
|
| Caparros | Party in a legal case |
Party in the case United States v. Caparros, cited by the government.
|
| Pappas | Party in a legal case |
Party in the case United States v. Pappas, cited by the government.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government | government agency |
Presented as an opposing party to Ms. Maxwell, relying on legal precedents.
|
| Court | judicial body |
Refers to the court that dismissed the appeal in the Caparros case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which decided the Caparros and Pappas cases.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the government's contentions and Ms. Maxwell's arguments as being in opposition within a legal case.
Key Quotes (2)
"protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by the parties during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal."Source
— the government
(A statement attributed to the government from Doc. 37, summarizing their interpretation of the Caparros and Pappas cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00019419.jpg
Quote #1
"[The issue] will not become moot on conviction and sentence or on acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings"Source
— the Court
(A direct quote from the Court's decision in the Caparros case, explaining why the appeal was dismissed.)
DOJ-OGR-00019419.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,586 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page20 of 58
The government’s contentions to the contrary rely on two easily
distinguishable cases and misunderstand Ms. Maxwell’s arguments. Start with the
two cases on which the government relies. Doc. 37, p 11 (citing United States v.
Caparros, 800 F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 798
(2d Cir. 1996)). According to the government, Caparros and Pappas hold that
“protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by the parties
during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal.” Doc. 37, p 11. That
is not correct.
distinguishable cases and misunderstand Ms. Maxwell’s arguments. Start with the
two cases on which the government relies. Doc. 37, p 11 (citing United States v.
Caparros, 800 F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 798
(2d Cir. 1996)). According to the government, Caparros and Pappas hold that
“protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by the parties
during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal.” Doc. 37, p 11. That
is not correct.
In Caparros, this Court dismissed an appeal of a protective order issued in a
criminal case preventing the defendant from making public certain documents
allegedly concerning public safety. 800 F.2d at 23–24. According to the defendant,
the prohibition on public disclosure was an unconstitutional prior restraint of
speech. Id. at 24. This Court dismissed the appeal because it did not satisfy the
three conditions precedent to interlocutory review, in particular the requirement
that the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Id.
at 24–26. Said the Court:
criminal case preventing the defendant from making public certain documents
allegedly concerning public safety. 800 F.2d at 23–24. According to the defendant,
the prohibition on public disclosure was an unconstitutional prior restraint of
speech. Id. at 24. This Court dismissed the appeal because it did not satisfy the
three conditions precedent to interlocutory review, in particular the requirement
that the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Id.
at 24–26. Said the Court:
[The issue] will not become moot on conviction and sentence or on
acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect
thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the
extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an
order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings
acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect
thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the
extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an
order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings
15
DOJ-OGR-00019419
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document