DOJ-OGR-00015056.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 794 Filed 07/23/25 Page 2 of 3

Maxwell has not made that showing. She has not shown, or attempted to show, that the grand jury materials in her case are apt to reveal any deficiency in the proceedings leading to her indictment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). And her convictions for conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) & (b)(2), entered following a jury trial, and the 240-month sentence imposed by Judge Nathan, have been affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256, 261 (2d Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025) (No. 24-1073).

Her argument is instead that, with the Government having recently moved to unseal the grand jury transcripts, her review of them would assist her counsel in “craft[ing] a response and setting out our position to the Court.” Dkt. 793 at 1. There is no compelling necessity for that. The Court has ordered the Government to produce these transcripts for the Court’s in camera review by Monday, July 28, 2025. The Court will review these transcripts expeditiously. In the event the Court determines it would benefit from Maxwell’s commentary as to a discrete aspect of these transcripts, the Court stands ready to make that excerpt, or a synopsis thereof, available to her counsel to facilitate counsel’s briefing. But there is no justification for Maxwell to obtain the extraordinary relief of plenary access to the grand jury transcripts in her case. See, e.g., In re for grand jury materials in connection with habeas petition where defendant failed to make “requisite showing of a particularized need”); Bruno v. Coveny, No. 18 Civ. 1522, 2020 WL 1812460, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) (same); Henareh v. United States, No. 14 Civ. 7145, 2018 WL 3468715, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018) (same), report and recommendation adopted, No. 11 Cr. 93, 2018 WL 3462508 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018); cf. e.g., United States v. Blondet, No. 16 Cr. 387, 2019 WL 5690711, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019) (denying defendant’s pre-trial motion for in camera review of grand jury minutes where he did not demonstrate “compelling necessity”); United States v. Lopez, No. 9 Cr. 525, 2010 WL 199652, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (similar).

2

DOJ-OGR-00015056