DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
790 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court motion/memorandum)
File Size:
790 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the motion; defense argues her ability to prepare is impaired by not knowing accuser identities.
|
| Three Accusers | Alleged Victims/Witnesses |
Unnamed individuals whose identities the defense is seeking to compel the government to disclose.
|
| Cannone | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation regarding disclosure of witness identities.
|
| Strawberry | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation regarding bill of particulars.
|
| Bortnovsky | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation regarding preventing surprise at trial.
|
| Warme | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation regarding disclosure of sex crime victim identity.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court adjudicating the case (implied SDNY based on citations).
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; currently withholding the specific identities of the accusers.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced in legal citations.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (referenced in citations).
|
|
| W.D.N.Y. |
Western District of New York (referenced in citations).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-08-25
The Court denied the defense's request for accuser identities as 'premature' (Dkt. 49).
District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Legal jurisdiction mentioned in citations)
|
Relationships (1)
Text refers to 'the three accusers' and Maxwell's need to know 'who has accused her of these alleged crimes'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell’s ability to prepare her case has already been significantly impaired by not knowing the most basic information about the government’s proof – she still does not know who has accused her of these alleged crimes."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
Quote #1
"Without knowing this fundamental information, Ms. Maxwell has been forced to make assumptions about their identities and attempt to investigate these allegations blindly."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
Quote #2
"there could be no greater “surprise” than for Ms. Maxwell to find out that a few weeks before trial that the people she assumed to be the three accusers were not, in fact, the right people."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
Quote #3
"On August 25, 2020, the Court denied as premature our request that the government be ordered to provide the identities of the three accusers."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,457 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 23
the district court. Id. “In deciding whether a bill of particulars is needed, the court must determine whether the information sought has been provided elsewhere, such as in other items provided by discovery, responses made to requests for particulars, prior proceedings, and the indictment itself.” United States v. Strawberry, 892 F. Supp. 519, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Ms. Maxwell’s ability to prepare her case has already been significantly impaired by not knowing the most basic information about the government’s proof – she still does not know who has accused her of these alleged crimes. Without knowing this fundamental information, Ms. Maxwell has been forced to make assumptions about their identities and attempt to investigate these allegations blindly. If one of the purposes of a bill of particulars is to “prevent surprise,” Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574, there could be no greater “surprise” than for Ms. Maxwell to find out that a few weeks before trial that the people she assumed to be the three accusers were not, in fact, the right people. If that occurs, the defense will have wasted months of investigation work and will not be able to adequately prepare for trial.
As we have previously argued (see Dkt. 38), the Court has the inherent authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses, and should do so here. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975);³ United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where “defendant’s ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge is significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim”). On August 25, 2020, the Court denied as premature our request that the government be ordered to provide the identities of the three accusers. (Dkt. 49). We have conferred with the
³ In Cannone, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court’s order to compel disclosure of witness identities under the circumstances of that case. 528 F.2d at 300-02. Nevertheless, Cannone recognized the district courts’ ability to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses in appropriate cases. Id at 301. Here, the unique circumstances of this case warrant the disclosure of the accusers’ identities.
4
DOJ-OGR-00002701
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document