DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg

728 KB

Extraction Summary

1
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal motion / court filing
File Size: 728 KB
Summary

This document is a legal filing arguing that accusers in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial should not be referred to as "victims" or "minor victims" to protect the presumption of innocence. The defense contends that using such terms implies a crime has definitely occurred, which biases the jury before a verdict is reached.

People (1)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell

Organizations (3)

Timeline (2 events)

Trial of Ghislaine Maxwell
Motion in limine

Locations (4)

Location Context

Relationships (2)

Key Quotes (4)

"Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to preclude reference to the accusers as “victims” or “minor victims.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg
Quote #1
"Instead, all trial participants, including the Court, should refer to all persons by their individual names."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg
Quote #2
"The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg
Quote #3
"Conveying such a personal belief biases the jury against Ms. Maxwell"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,181 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 395 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 9
Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to preclude reference to the accusers as “victims” or
“minor victims.” Ms. Maxwell moves for an order precluding all trial participants from referring
to the accusers as “victims” or “minor victims.” Instead, all trial participants, including the
Court, should refer to all persons by their individual names.
ARGUMENT
Under the United States Constitution, Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent unless the
government proves all elements of the alleged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. Const.
amend. V; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). The presumption of innocence has deep
historical roots and is a core tenet of criminal law. “The principle that there is a presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its
enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin v. United
States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895) (looking to Deuteronomy and the law of Athens, Sparta, and
Rome for early versions of the presumption of innocence).
In some criminal cases, the parties agree that an accuser was the victim of a crime. When,
for example, a person is stabbed or shot, there is no dispute that the person was a victim of
something. E.g., Jackson v. State, 600 A.2d 21, 24 (Del. 1991) (stating, on appeal from a rape
conviction, that “[t]he term ‘victim’ is used appropriately during trial when there is no doubt that
a crime was committed and simply the identity of the perpetrator is in issue.”).
This is not one of those cases. Rather, Ms. Maxwell denies that she victimized anyone.
And there is ample evidence to support her defense. The jury ultimately will have to decide
whether the government has proven that these accusers are in fact “victims” or “minor victims.”
In advance of the jury's verdict, any reference to the accusers by those terms necessarily conveys
the speaker’s opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible. Conveying
such a personal belief biases the jury against Ms. Maxwell, implies a belief in the truthfulness of
1
DOJ-OGR-00005769

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document