DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
698 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
698 KB
Summary
This legal document is page 2 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 3, 2021. The author argues that the government cannot use attorney-client privilege to prevent Ms. Maxwell's team from cross-examining a witness named Jane about a statement her attorney, Mr. Glassman, made to her. The filing contends the privilege does not apply because the communication was not intended to be confidential and, in any case, was waived when it was relayed to the government.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable (Judge) |
The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Subject of testimony |
The subject of a line of cross-examination, against whom Jane is testifying.
|
| Mr. Glassman | Attorney |
An attorney whose statement to 'Jane' is the subject of an attorney-client privilege dispute.
|
| Jane | Witness/Client |
A person cooperating with the government, testifying against Ms. Maxwell, and the recipient of a statement from Mr. G...
|
| Schwimmer |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Schwimmer'.
|
|
| Davis |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'Davis, 415 U.S. at 317 n.4'.
|
|
| Greene |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'Greene v. McElroy'.
|
|
| McElroy |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'Greene v. McElroy'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
A party in the case asserting attorney-client privilege on behalf of Jane.
|
| United States | government |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Schwimmer'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Cross-examination of a witness regarding a conversation from months prior.
Ms. Maxwell's legal team
a witness
Jane chose to cooperate with the government and testify against Ms. Maxwell.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re County of Erie'.
|
Relationships (3)
The document discusses the applicability of attorney-client privilege to a statement Mr. Glassman made to Jane, and notes the government is asserting the privilege on behalf of Jane.
Jane chose to cooperate with the government and 'testify against Ms. Maxwell'.
Jane is cooperating with the government to testify against Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (5)
"help her case"Source
— Mr. Glassman
(A statement made by Mr. Glassman to Jane regarding her cooperation and testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
Quote #1
"The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure (1) a communication between client and counsel that (2) was intended to be and was in fact kept confidential, and (3) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice."Source
— In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007)
(Quoted to define the attorney-client privilege.)
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
Quote #2
"The burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege, in all its elements, always rests upon the person asserting it."Source
— United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 244 (2d Cir. 1989)
(Quoted to establish who has the burden of proof for privilege.)
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
Quote #3
"it was [not] intended to be . . . kept confidential."Source
— Erie, 473 F.3d at 419
(Quoted to argue that Mr. Glassman's statement is not protected by privilege.)
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
Quote #4
"even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty"Source
— Davis, 415 U.S. at 317 n.4 (quoting Greene v. McElroy)
(A quote from a footnote regarding the importance of cross-examination when a witness's memory may be faulty.)
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,031 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 521 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 5
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 3, 2021
Page 2
December 3, 2021
Page 2
relevant to her memory and capacity as a witness since she cannot recall a highly consequential conversation she had just months ago.²
For two reasons, the government is wrong to say that the attorney-client privilege bars Ms. Maxwell from pursuing this line of cross-examination. First, the attorney-client privilege does not apply to Mr. Glassman’s statement to Jane that cooperating and testifying would “help her case.” Second, even if the privilege did apply, it was waived when Mr. Glassman relayed his statement to the government. Ex. 1 (3509-022).
“The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure (1) a communication between client and counsel that (2) was intended to be and was in fact kept confidential, and (3) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.” In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007). “The burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege, in all its elements, always rests upon the person asserting it.” United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 244 (2d Cir. 1989). In this case, the party asserting the privilege is the government on behalf of Jane.
The government has not met its burden. Mr. Glassman’s statement to Jane that her cooperation and testimony would “help her case” is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because “it was [not] intended to be . . . kept confidential.” Erie, 473 F.3d at 419. We know this because the government would want to know (if only for purposes of preparing for cross-examination), and Jane would want the government to know, why she chose to cooperate and to testify against Ms. Maxwell. 1 McCormick on Evid., § 91 (“Wherever the matters communicated
² Davis, 415 U.S. at 317 n.4 (cross examination is “even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty” (quoting Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496 (1959))).
DOJ-OGR-00008207
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document