DOJ-OGR-00004791.jpg
713 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
713 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when the Government used her civil deposition testimony in her criminal trial. The text asserts that civil protective orders do not prevent testimony from being used in subsequent criminal proceedings and that Maxwell was free to plead the Fifth during the original civil case but chose not to. It also addresses an argument regarding the law firm BSF turning over transcripts.
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BSF |
Boies Schiller Flexner (Law Firm); mentioned as turning over deposition transcripts.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals; cited for legal precedent regarding protective orders.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited for legal precedent regarding production of documents.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; mentioned as the entity using the testimony against Maxwell.
|
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga |
Mentioned in case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
Relationships (2)
Text references 'BSF’s act of turning over her deposition transcripts'.
Government using testimony against her in criminal case.
Key Quotes (4)
"Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against the use of their testimony in a subsequent criminal proceeding."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004791.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell thus has failed to establish the first and most fundamental element of a violation of her right against compelled self-incrimination: compulsion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004791.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004791.jpg
Quote #3
"Because the Government did not compel Maxwell to offer incriminating testimony, it did not violate her right against compelled self-incrimination."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004791.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,103 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 7 of 21
or modified by another court in another proceeding. Id. A civil protective order may (as here)
be limited by its terms to pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that
confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod.
Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here)
unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d
at 47; Giuffre v. Maxwell, 827 F. App’x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor
legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against the use of their testimony in a
subsequent criminal proceeding.
be limited by its terms to pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that
confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod.
Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here)
unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d
at 47; Giuffre v. Maxwell, 827 F. App’x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor
legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against the use of their testimony in a
subsequent criminal proceeding.
Maxwell thus has failed to establish the first and most fundamental element of a violation
of her right against compelled self-incrimination: compulsion. Because the protection typically
afforded by a civil protective order is both porous and ephemeral, the Second Circuit has held
that “a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions
in reliance upon such an order.” Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her
Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony.
Longstanding precedent made clear that if she did not do so, the Government could use any such
testimony that it learned of against her in a later criminal case. Because the Government did not
compel Maxwell to offer incriminating testimony, it did not violate her right against compelled
self-incrimination.
of her right against compelled self-incrimination: compulsion. Because the protection typically
afforded by a civil protective order is both porous and ephemeral, the Second Circuit has held
that “a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions
in reliance upon such an order.” Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her
Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony.
Longstanding precedent made clear that if she did not do so, the Government could use any such
testimony that it learned of against her in a later criminal case. Because the Government did not
compel Maxwell to offer incriminating testimony, it did not violate her right against compelled
self-incrimination.
Maxwell’s alternative argument that BSF’s act of turning over her deposition transcripts
was itself compelled testimony is likewise without merit. The Supreme Court has held that the
act of producing documents in response to a subpoena implicates the Fifth Amendment only in
narrow circumstances—when the existence of responsive documents, rather than their content, is
was itself compelled testimony is likewise without merit. The Supreme Court has held that the
act of producing documents in response to a subpoena implicates the Fifth Amendment only in
narrow circumstances—when the existence of responsive documents, rather than their content, is
7
DOJ-OGR-00004791
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document