DOJ-OGR-00008408.jpg
654 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
654 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing, dated December 17, 2021, arguing against the admissibility of a prior 2008 decision not to indict Ms. Maxwell. The speaker contends that the reasons for the 2008 decision by officials in the Southern District of Florida are not relevant to the current case, would be prejudicial, and could cause juror confusion. This is contrasted with the 'White' case, where a prior charging decision was deemed admissible because it directly related to a witness's credibility.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Subject of legal proceedings |
Mentioned as the individual who was not indicted in 2008 by officials in the Southern District of Florida.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI | Government agency |
An alleged victim made a statement to the FBI regarding Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Southern District of Florida | Judicial district |
Officials in this district decided not to indict Ms. Maxwell in 2008.
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The body determining the relevance and admissibility of the prior charging decision.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed in the footer, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2008
Officials in the Southern District of Florida made a charging decision to not indict Ms. Maxwell.
Southern District of Florida
officials in the Southern District of Florida
Ms. Maxwell
A defendant's trial where a witness testified, referenced in the 'White' case.
defendant
witness
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where officials' assessments of evidence in 2008 took place.
|
|
|
The jurisdiction where officials decided not to indict Ms. Maxwell in 2008.
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes the officials' decision in 2008 not to indict Ms. Maxwell based on evidence available at that time.
The victim's statements to the FBI are discussed in the context of whether they implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,677 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 24 26
LB1TMAX1
LB1TMAX1
1 admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In White, the
2 court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible
3 because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that
4 testified at the defendant's trial.
5 As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale
6 doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an
7 alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not
8 implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today
9 does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and
10 assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of
11 reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided
12 to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision
13 could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the
14 government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt,
15 but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number
16 of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little
17 probative value that the Court can see as to this case.
18 Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of
19 reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be
20 prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require
21 significant time to explore and because juror confusion would
22 be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions
23 would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible
24 evidence. More importantly, unlike in White, those officials'
25 assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant
2 court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible
3 because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that
4 testified at the defendant's trial.
5 As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale
6 doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an
7 alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not
8 implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today
9 does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and
10 assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of
11 reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided
12 to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision
13 could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the
14 government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt,
15 but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number
16 of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little
17 probative value that the Court can see as to this case.
18 Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of
19 reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be
20 prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require
21 significant time to explore and because juror confusion would
22 be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions
23 would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible
24 evidence. More importantly, unlike in White, those officials'
25 assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008408
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document