DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg

727 KB

Extraction Summary

0
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing / court document (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size: 727 KB
Summary

This document is page 97 (filed page 124) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains legal arguments regarding the Fifth Amendment, citing case law to establish that the government is not required to inform a witness of the nature of an investigation or their status within it to avoid self-incrimination. The text also introduces the 'Act of Production Privilege' as a subset of Fifth Amendment rights.

Key Quotes (5)

"The question is not whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his “free will,” when he spoke, “was overborne.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
Quote #1
"The Constitution does not “require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
Quote #2
"“the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
Quote #3
"In short, the Fifth Amendment is only violated by “government misconduct” that is “coercive.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
Quote #4
"The act of production privilege is a form of the Fifth Amendment privilege pertaining to the production of materials."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00003058.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,150 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 124 of 239
element which influences a criminal suspect to make incriminating admissions.” Id. The question
is not whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his “free will,” when he spoke,
“was overborne.” Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir.
2014).
It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation,
see United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1987), much less his individual status
in the investigation, see Washington, 431 U.S. at 189 & 190 n.6. The Constitution does not
“require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-
interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.” Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564,
576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement
that law enforcement give information that might affect “the wisdom” of speaking). Nor does the
Constitution require that someone be questioned only in the manner most likely to ensure that he
gives the decision whether to speak careful thought. See, e.g., United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d
149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) (“the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a
difference between “those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those
which are merely difficult”).
In short, the Fifth Amendment is only violated by “government misconduct” that is
“coercive.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163 (1986); see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S.
298, 312 (1985) (Fifth Amendment prohibits “coercion” effected “by physical violence or other
deliberate means calculated to break the suspect’s will”).
ii. The Fifth Amendment – Act of Production Privilege
The act of production privilege is a form of the Fifth Amendment privilege pertaining to
the production of materials. “[A]n individual may claim an act of production privilege to decline
97
DOJ-OGR-00003058

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document