DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
751 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / government motion (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size:
751 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (regarding the admissibility of victims' sexual behavior) is impractical as it conflicts with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to allow sufficient time for investigation and *in camera* hearings.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Prosecution/Filer |
Submitting arguments regarding trial deadlines and Rule 412 motions.
|
| Defense | Opposing Party |
Received witness lists and Giglio material; proposing a November 15 deadline for Rule 412 motions.
|
| Victims/Victim Witnesses | Witnesses |
Subject to potential Rule 412 motions; have a right to be heard in in camera hearings.
|
| AJN | Judge (Initials) |
Alison J. Nathan (implied by case number suffix in header).
|
Timeline (3 events)
October 11, 2021
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
District Court for the District of Columbia (cited in US v. Smith).
|
Relationships (2)
Government arguing against Defense's proposed schedule.
Defense may file Rule 412 motions regarding victims' past sexual behavior.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government respectfully submits that the Court has “good cause” to set an earlier deadline in order to ensure that any issues stemming from Rule 412 litigation are resolved in a timely fashion"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
Quote #1
"Additionally, a deadline of 14 days before trial for the defense’s Rule 412 motion is not practical in light of the trial schedule."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
Quote #2
"Given that there are multiple victim witnesses and the defense has not yet notified the Government whether it intends to make a Rule 412 motion as to one or more than one"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,224 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 354 Filed 10/15/21 Page 3 of 4
Page 3
Page 3
“Given that the hearing provides an opportunity for the Rule 412 movant to detail the evidence he
seeks to admit and for the parties to discuss the propriety of its admission, the notice requirement
should be seen as serving two purposes: 1) aiding the Court in determining the threshold matter of
whether a hearing is necessary; and 2) providing sufficient notice to the nonmovant and victim
alike to prepare for and argue against the necessity of any in camera hearing.” United States v.
Smith, 19 Cr. 324 (BAH), 2020 WL 5995100, at *19 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2020).
seeks to admit and for the parties to discuss the propriety of its admission, the notice requirement
should be seen as serving two purposes: 1) aiding the Court in determining the threshold matter of
whether a hearing is necessary; and 2) providing sufficient notice to the nonmovant and victim
alike to prepare for and argue against the necessity of any in camera hearing.” United States v.
Smith, 19 Cr. 324 (BAH), 2020 WL 5995100, at *19 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2020).
Here, the Government produced to the defense a witness list, Giglio material, Jencks Act
material, and notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by October 11, 2021, or 7 weeks
in advance of trial. The Government understands that the Court’s schedule for early disclosure of
Jencks Act material and early motions in limine was designed, in part, to ensure that any significant
issues are resolved substantially in advance of trial. The Government respectfully submits that the
Court has “good cause” to set an earlier deadline in order to ensure that any issues stemming from
Rule 412 litigation are resolved in a timely fashion in advance of trial, including the need for the
Government to investigate and meaningfully respond to such sensitive and important issues. See
Smith, 2020 WL 5995100, at *19.
material, and notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by October 11, 2021, or 7 weeks
in advance of trial. The Government understands that the Court’s schedule for early disclosure of
Jencks Act material and early motions in limine was designed, in part, to ensure that any significant
issues are resolved substantially in advance of trial. The Government respectfully submits that the
Court has “good cause” to set an earlier deadline in order to ensure that any issues stemming from
Rule 412 litigation are resolved in a timely fashion in advance of trial, including the need for the
Government to investigate and meaningfully respond to such sensitive and important issues. See
Smith, 2020 WL 5995100, at *19.
Additionally, a deadline of 14 days before trial for the defense’s Rule 412 motion is not
practical in light of the trial schedule. Under the defense schedule, the defense will file their Rule
412 motion on November 15, 2021, and give notice to both the Government and victims. See Fed.
R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(D). At some point over the following two weeks—during jury selection and
the Thanksgiving holiday—the Government will respond to the motion, and the Court “must
conduct an in camera hearing” that gives the parties and the victims the right to be heard. See Fed.
R. Evid. 412(c)(2). Given that there are multiple victim witnesses and the defense has not yet
notified the Government whether it intends to make a Rule 412 motion as to one or more than one
practical in light of the trial schedule. Under the defense schedule, the defense will file their Rule
412 motion on November 15, 2021, and give notice to both the Government and victims. See Fed.
R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(D). At some point over the following two weeks—during jury selection and
the Thanksgiving holiday—the Government will respond to the motion, and the Court “must
conduct an in camera hearing” that gives the parties and the victims the right to be heard. See Fed.
R. Evid. 412(c)(2). Given that there are multiple victim witnesses and the defense has not yet
notified the Government whether it intends to make a Rule 412 motion as to one or more than one
DOJ-OGR-00005248
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document