DOJ-OGR-00005572.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government is arguing against a defendant's motion. The Government contends that the defendant has not shown a 'particularized need' to publicly disclose the true names of the 'Minor Victims' during trial. The Government asserts that the defendant already knows the victims' identities and can conduct a thorough cross-examination without this public disclosure, which would protect the victims' privacy.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Marcus |
Mentioned in a case citation: 'Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at *1'
|
|
| Marti |
Mentioned in a case citation: '(citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266)'
|
|
| Minor Victims | Victim |
A group of individuals central to the legal case, whose identities the defendant wants to publicly disclose.
|
| lawyers for the Minor Victims | Lawyer |
Mentioned as a potential line of cross-examination by the defense.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, arguing against the public disclosure of the Minor Victims' names.
|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body where the case is being heard.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Discussion of a legal motion regarding the rules for cross-examination at an upcoming trial, specifically concerning the public disclosure of the names of Minor Victims.
Court
Relationships (2)
The document details a legal dispute between the defendant and the Government over a motion concerning trial procedures.
The document mentions 'the identities of the lawyers for the Minor Victims', indicating a client-attorney relationship.
Key Quotes (2)
"demonstrate a ‘particularized need’ for disclosure."Source
— Legal standard cited from case law
(A requirement the defendant must meet to justify disclosing identifying information in open court.)
DOJ-OGR-00005572.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government has no objection to cross-examination . . ."Source
— Government
(Quoted from a government motion (Gov't Mot. at 15 n.6) to show the government is not broadly limiting the defense's ability to cross-examine.)
DOJ-OGR-00005572.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,775 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 18 of 40
that might be relevant to the jury’s deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the witness.” Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at *1 (citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266). And where the Government establishes a legitimate reason to limit disclosure of identifying information in open Court, the defendant must “demonstrate a ‘particularized need’ for disclosure.” Id.
Here, both of those interests are satisfied. The defendant knows who the Minor Victims and other witnesses are and has conducted a fulsome investigation, as shown by the defendant’s brief in opposition. And the jury, which will also know the true names of the Minor Victims, will fully understand whatever information the defense elicits on cross-examination or at trial. For instance, as the Government has said, the defense is free to elicit the fact that [REDACTED]. (Compare Def. Opp. 21, with Gov’t Mot. at 15 n.6 (“The Government has no objection to cross-examination . . . [REDACTED]). The only substantive limit the Government proposes on the defendant’s ability to elicit information is certain detailed personally identifying information, none of which is relevant or necessary to elicit at trial. (See Gov’t Mot. at 15 & n.6).
Citing general cases about the Confrontation Clause, the defense describes a series of other lines of cross-examination they might like to elicit, including (a) [REDACTED] (b) [REDACTED] (c) [REDACTED], and (d) the identities of the lawyers for the Minor Victims. (Def. Opp. at 21-22). Some of these topics are objectionable for other reasons. But for purposes of this motion, the defendant must show that she requires the true names of the Minor Victims to be publicly disclosed
Here, both of those interests are satisfied. The defendant knows who the Minor Victims and other witnesses are and has conducted a fulsome investigation, as shown by the defendant’s brief in opposition. And the jury, which will also know the true names of the Minor Victims, will fully understand whatever information the defense elicits on cross-examination or at trial. For instance, as the Government has said, the defense is free to elicit the fact that [REDACTED]. (Compare Def. Opp. 21, with Gov’t Mot. at 15 n.6 (“The Government has no objection to cross-examination . . . [REDACTED]). The only substantive limit the Government proposes on the defendant’s ability to elicit information is certain detailed personally identifying information, none of which is relevant or necessary to elicit at trial. (See Gov’t Mot. at 15 & n.6).
Citing general cases about the Confrontation Clause, the defense describes a series of other lines of cross-examination they might like to elicit, including (a) [REDACTED] (b) [REDACTED] (c) [REDACTED], and (d) the identities of the lawyers for the Minor Victims. (Def. Opp. at 21-22). Some of these topics are objectionable for other reasons. But for purposes of this motion, the defendant must show that she requires the true names of the Minor Victims to be publicly disclosed
17
DOJ-OGR-00005572
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document