DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (page 19 of 21)
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena, rejecting her arguments based on the 'Franks' and 'Martindell' legal precedents. The text affirms a previous decision by Judge McMahon to modify a protective order to allow a secret Government investigation into a high-profile matter, noting that while Judge Netburn disagreed, McMahon's decision had a substantial basis and is entitled to deference.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Movant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; arguing for suppression of evidence based on Franks and Martindell precedents.
|
| Judge McMahon | Judge |
Made a previous decision to modify a protective order allowing the Government to investigate a high-profile matter in...
|
| Judge Netburn | Judge (likely Magistrate) |
Reached the opposite conclusion to Judge McMahon regarding the modification of the protective order.
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority (Judge Paul A. Engelmayer) |
The current judge ruling on the motion to suppress evidence.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; obtained evidence via grand jury subpoena.
|
|
| The Court |
United States District Court (implied SDNY based on case number).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Prior to 2021-06-25
Judge McMahon modified a protective order to allow Government investigation.
Court
Relationships (2)
Maxwell is moving to suppress evidence obtained by the Government.
Judge Netburn reached the opposite conclusion to Judge McMahon regarding the protective order modification.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court thus finds that Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing under either prong of Franks"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
Quote #1
"Martindell provides no independent basis for suppression"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
Quote #2
"Judge McMahon concluded that modification was necessary under the circumstances to allow the Government to investigate a high-profile matter in secrecy and so not to tip off the target of the investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
Quote #3
"Although reasonable minds may differ—indeed, Judge Netburn reached the opposite conclusion—there was a substantial basis for Judge McMahon’s decision"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,086 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 19 of 21
The Court thus finds that Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing under
either prong of Franks, and thus that she is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. For the same
reasons, and because the present record does not establish a violation of due process, the Court
declines to suppress the evidence obtained by the Government’s grand jury subpoena.
either prong of Franks, and thus that she is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. For the same
reasons, and because the present record does not establish a violation of due process, the Court
declines to suppress the evidence obtained by the Government’s grand jury subpoena.
D. Martindell provides no independent basis for suppression
The Court turns finally to Maxwell’s argument that Martindell provides an independent
basis for suppression. Maxwell cites no authority in her opening brief for the proposition that a
court may suppress evidence because it disagrees with another court’s decision to modify a
protective order under Martindell. Indeed, there is no such authority. No court has ever granted
a motion to suppress on this ground. The Court declines to review Judge McMahon’s decision,
because Martindell provides no basis to suppress evidence even if this Court were to disagree
with it.
basis for suppression. Maxwell cites no authority in her opening brief for the proposition that a
court may suppress evidence because it disagrees with another court’s decision to modify a
protective order under Martindell. Indeed, there is no such authority. No court has ever granted
a motion to suppress on this ground. The Court declines to review Judge McMahon’s decision,
because Martindell provides no basis to suppress evidence even if this Court were to disagree
with it.
Even if Maxwell were right that this Court should review Judge McMahon’s decision on
the merits, that decision—like a magistrate’s probable cause determination—would be entitled to
“great deference.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 914. Courts will uphold another judge’s decision to allow
the Government to obtain evidence on a motion to suppress so long as there is a “substantial
basis” for the decision. Salameh, 152 F.3d at 113 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–
39 (1983)). Judge McMahon found that the Government had established exceptional
circumstances to modify the protective order based on the factual record before her. Judge
McMahon concluded that modification was necessary under the circumstances to allow the
Government to investigate a high-profile matter in secrecy and so not to tip off the target of the
investigation. Although reasonable minds may differ—indeed, Judge Netburn reached the
opposite conclusion—there was a substantial basis for Judge McMahon’s decision and it is thus
the merits, that decision—like a magistrate’s probable cause determination—would be entitled to
“great deference.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 914. Courts will uphold another judge’s decision to allow
the Government to obtain evidence on a motion to suppress so long as there is a “substantial
basis” for the decision. Salameh, 152 F.3d at 113 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–
39 (1983)). Judge McMahon found that the Government had established exceptional
circumstances to modify the protective order based on the factual record before her. Judge
McMahon concluded that modification was necessary under the circumstances to allow the
Government to investigate a high-profile matter in secrecy and so not to tip off the target of the
investigation. Although reasonable minds may differ—indeed, Judge Netburn reached the
opposite conclusion—there was a substantial basis for Judge McMahon’s decision and it is thus
19
DOJ-OGR-00004803
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document