DOJ-OGR-00010710.jpg
667 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
667 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that victims identified as Sarah and Elizabeth should be permitted to read their victim impact statements aloud at Maxwell's criminal sentencing. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Wilson and Kelly v. California, to support the court's authority to consider such testimony and asserts that doing so will not cause unfair prejudice to Maxwell. A footnote clarifies that Maxwell does not have the right to cross-examine victims during sentencing hearings.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout as the subject of a criminal sentencing and conspiracy.
|
| Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Mentioned as part of the 'Maxwell/Epstein conspiracy'.
|
| Sarah | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim entitled to read an impact statement at Maxwell's sentencing.
|
| Elizabeth | Victim |
Mentioned as a victim entitled to read an impact statement at Maxwell's sentencing.
|
| Wilson |
Named in the legal case citation 'United States v. Wilson'.
|
|
| Kelly |
Named in the legal case citation 'Kelly v. California'.
|
|
| Blume | Author |
Quoted from the publication 'Ten Years of Payne: Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases'.
|
| Paul G. Cassell | Author |
Cited in a footnote as an author of 'Victim Impact Statements and Ancillary Harm: The American Perspective'.
|
| Edna Erez | Author |
Cited in a footnote as a co-author of 'Victim Impact Statements and Ancillary Harm: The American Perspective'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the case citation 'United States v. Wilson'.
|
| Cornell L.Rev. | publication |
Cited as the publisher of an article by Blume.
|
| CANADIAN CRIM. L. REV. | publication |
Cited in a footnote as the publisher of an article by Cassell & Erez.
|
| Federal courts | government agency |
Mentioned in the footnote regarding confrontation rights at sentencing.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Wilson, referring to the Eastern District of New York.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'Kelly v. California'.
|
Relationships (3)
The document refers to the 'Maxwell/Epstein conspiracy to sexually abuse dozens and dozens of young women and girls.'
The document states that 'Sarah and Elizabeth are entitled to read aloud their victim impact statements at Maxwell’s criminal sentencing.'
Key Quotes (3)
"effect of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family, and may include oral testimony[.]"Source
— United States v. Wilson
(Quoted to support the argument that victim impact statements can help the Court understand the crime's impact.)
DOJ-OGR-00010710.jpg
Quote #1
"oral or written testimony from close family members regarding victims and the direct impact"Source
— Kelly v. California
(Cited to show that courts have allowed testimony from family members in sentencing determinations.)
DOJ-OGR-00010710.jpg
Quote #2
"Federal courts have consistently held that full confrontation rights do not extend to sentencing, a ruling that would implicitly block cross-examination of victims at federal sentencing hearings."Source
— Paul G. Cassell & Edna Erez
(From a footnote explaining that Maxwell's response to victim statements cannot include cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00010710.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,058 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 675 Filed 06/25/22 Page 19 of 21
the dozens and dozens of other co-conspirators who were an essential part of the Maxwell/Epstein
conspiracy to sexually abuse dozens and dozens of young women and girls.
conspiracy to sexually abuse dozens and dozens of young women and girls.
Sarah and Elizabeth are entitled to read aloud their victim impact statements at Maxwell’s
criminal sentencing. Victim impact statements can help the Court understand the “effect of the
offense on the victim and the victim’s family, and may include oral testimony[.]” See United States v.
Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 364, 393 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). Courts have
allowed sentencing determinations to consider “oral or written testimony from close family members
regarding victims and the direct impact” of the harm. Kelly v. California, 555 U.S. 1020 (2008)
quoting Blume, Ten Years of Payne: Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases, 88 Cornell L.Rev. 257,
271–272 (2003) (collecting cases). Courts have also considered poems, photographs, hand-crafted
items, and even multimedia video presentations. Id. Sarah’s and Elizabeth’s request to provide oral
testimony should not be denied.
criminal sentencing. Victim impact statements can help the Court understand the “effect of the
offense on the victim and the victim’s family, and may include oral testimony[.]” See United States v.
Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 364, 393 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). Courts have
allowed sentencing determinations to consider “oral or written testimony from close family members
regarding victims and the direct impact” of the harm. Kelly v. California, 555 U.S. 1020 (2008)
quoting Blume, Ten Years of Payne: Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases, 88 Cornell L.Rev. 257,
271–272 (2003) (collecting cases). Courts have also considered poems, photographs, hand-crafted
items, and even multimedia video presentations. Id. Sarah’s and Elizabeth’s request to provide oral
testimony should not be denied.
Allowing Maxwell’s victims to speak will cause no unfair prejudice to Maxwell. As explained
above, this Court clearly possesses the authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to obtain any information
that may be relevant to sentencing. Maxwell will have an opportunity to respond through her
counsel to any information the victims provide.⁶ The Court can then sift through all the information
to determine what is relevant in imposing Maxwell’s sentence. The Court should err on the side of
above, this Court clearly possesses the authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to obtain any information
that may be relevant to sentencing. Maxwell will have an opportunity to respond through her
counsel to any information the victims provide.⁶ The Court can then sift through all the information
to determine what is relevant in imposing Maxwell’s sentence. The Court should err on the side of
⁶ Maxwell’s response cannot include cross-examining the victims. See Paul G. Cassell & Edna
Erez, Victim Impact Statements and Ancillary Harm: The American Perspective, 15 CANADIAN CRIM. L.
REV. 150, 169-70 (2011) (“Federal courts have consistently held that full confrontation rights do
not extend to sentencing, a ruling that would implicitly block cross-examination of victims at federal
sentencing hearings.”).
Erez, Victim Impact Statements and Ancillary Harm: The American Perspective, 15 CANADIAN CRIM. L.
REV. 150, 169-70 (2011) (“Federal courts have consistently held that full confrontation rights do
not extend to sentencing, a ruling that would implicitly block cross-examination of victims at federal
sentencing hearings.”).
19
DOJ-OGR-00010710
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document