DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
723 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court memorandum (page 2 of 9)
File Size:
723 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 545) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 15, 2021. The text argues against a motion by the defendant to compel victims' attorneys to testify, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. The argument emphasizes that forcing counsel to testify against their clients, particularly victims of sexual abuse, is legally disfavored and damaging to the attorney-client relationship.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant | Defendant |
Referenced in the legal argument regarding the attempt to call victims' counsel as witnesses. (Contextually Ghislaine...
|
| Victims | Victims |
Referenced as 'vulnerable victim like the victim of sexual abuse'.
|
| Victims' Counsel | Attorneys |
The subjects of the motion; the defendant is attempting to compel them to testify.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court |
The Court addressed in the filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in legal precedent).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in citation 'Att'y-Client Privilege in the U.S.'
|
Relationships (1)
Text discusses defendant's attempt to call victims' counsel as witnesses.
Key Quotes (4)
"the Court should deny the motion under Rule 403 rather than compel victims’ counsel to testify against their own clients."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
Quote #1
"forcing an attorney to testify against his client comes at the direct expense of the attorney-client relationship, especially for a vulnerable victim like the victim of sexual abuse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
Quote #2
"Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
Quote #3
"“exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,125 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 545 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 9
established and cannot be established without infringing on privilege. Finally, even if the proposed testimony were relevant to some minimal extent, the Court should deny the motion under Rule 403 rather than compel victims’ counsel to testify against their own clients. The defendant’s approach here is strongly disfavored by courts because, even if not implicating privileged, forcing an attorney to testify against his client comes at the direct expense of the attorney-client relationship, especially for a vulnerable victim like the victim of sexual abuse.
I. Applicable Law
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court may “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” It is generally disfavored for a party at a trial to call an attorney as a witness against the attorney’s client, because doing so intrudes on the attorney-client relationship. Cf., e.g., 1 Att’y-Client Privilege in the U.S. § 3:24 (2021) (“Although attorneys are subject to subpoena just like any other witness, courts discourage the government from calling the attorney of a defendant, or of the target of a criminal investigation, because forcing an attorney to testify against his client comes at the direct expense of the attorney-client relationship. ‘The serving of a subpoena will immediately drive a chilling wedge between the attorney/witness and his client.’”); United States v. Schwartzbaum, 527 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1975) (holding that the defendant may not call Government counsel as a witness unless “required by a compelling and legitimate need”); Edebali v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co., 14 Civ. 7095 (JS)
2
DOJ-OGR-00008375
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document