DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg
594 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
594 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing dated October 29, 2021, which argues for victim protections during testimony. It cites two judicial precedents: one from Judge Garaufis, who distinguished between a victim's choice to speak publicly and court testimony, and another from Judge Donnelly in the case of *United States v. Robert Kelly*, where the court allowed victims to use pseudonyms due to the sensitive nature of their testimony about sexual abuse.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Garaufis | Judge |
Mentioned as having found facts 'irrelevant' regarding victims' names already being public, and quoted on the differe...
|
| Judge Donnelly | Judge |
Mentioned as having reached a similar result in the case of United States v. Robert Kelly.
|
| Robert Kelly | Defendant |
Named as the defendant in the case United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the United States v. Robert Kelly case, which moved to permit victims to testify with ce...
|
| The Court | government agency |
Mentioned as having granted the Government's motion in the Kelly case.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-07-10
The Government moved in limine in the case of United States v. Robert Kelly to permit certain victims to testify using pseudonyms and other protections.
E.D.N.Y.
2021-08-03
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Eastern District of New York, where the case of United States v. Robert Kelly was heard.
|
Relationships (1)
Judge Donnelly presided over the case of United States v. Robert Kelly.
Key Quotes (5)
"just because some victims’ names are publicly available does not mean that the details of their experiences are already available,"Source
— Judge Garaufis
(Part of a finding that the prior public availability of victims' names was 'irrelevant' to their protection in court.)
DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg
Quote #1
"the choice of a victim to publicly discuss a crime is not analogous to being put on the stand about it, as, in court, the victim will not be able to choose how and to what level of detail she discusses the crime."Source
— Judge Garaufis
(Explaining the difference between a victim choosing to speak publicly and being compelled to testify in court.)
DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg
Quote #2
"expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning their . . . illegal sexual abuse by the defendant, some of which occurred while most of the Victim-Witnesses were under the age of 18."Source
— The Government
(An explanation from a motion in the Kelly case regarding the nature of the victims' expected testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg
Quote #3
"not spoken publicly about their experiences,"Source
— The Government
(Describing two of the victims in the Kelly case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg
Quote #4
"her anticipated testimony at trial will be more fulsome than her prior public disclosures and will include sensitive information that has not been previously publicly revealed."Source
— The Government
(Describing a third victim in the Kelly case who had previously made public disclosures.)
DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,713 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 Filed 10/29/21 Page 10 of 54
names were already public and that some victims had come forward by choice, Judge Garaufis found those facts “irrelevant”: “just because some victims’ names are publicly available does not mean that the details of their experiences are already available,” and “the choice of a victim to publicly discuss a crime is not analogous to being put on the stand about it, as, in court, the victim will not be able to choose how and to what level of detail she discusses the crime.” Id. at 34 n.17.
Judge Donnelly reached a similar result in United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD). In that case, the Government also moved in limine to permit certain victims to testify using pseudonyms or their first names and prevent public disclosure of their addresses, names of family members, or exact places of employment. Mot. at 1, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2021), Dkt. No. 121. As the Government explained, the victims were “expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning their . . . illegal sexual abuse by the defendant, some of which occurred while most of the Victim-Witnesses were under the age of 18.” Id. at 9-10. The Government also explained that two of the victims had “not spoken publicly about their experiences,” and while a third had done so, “her anticipated testimony at trial will be more fulsome than her prior public disclosures and will include sensitive information that has not been previously publicly revealed.” Id. at 11. The Court granted the motion. Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y.).
9
DOJ-OGR-00005403
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document