DOJ-OGR-00005613.jpg

667 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal motion (motion in limine)
File Size: 667 KB
Summary

This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Motion in Limine) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the Government should be precluded from introducing certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the prosecution failed to provide particularized notice and reasoning as required by the December 2020 amendments to the rule. The text outlines the specific requirements of the amended rule regarding notice in criminal cases.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Moving to exclude evidence the Government seeks to admit.
The Government Prosecution
Opposing party; accused of failing to follow Rule 404(b) requirements regarding evidence notice.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
Advisory Committee
Mentioned in relation to the 2020 Amendments notes.

Timeline (3 events)

2020-12
Amendment of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Federal Courts
2021-10-11
Court's deadline for the Government to comply with the Rule.
Court
2021-10-29
Document filed with the court.
Court

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal Adversary The Government
Maxwell is moving to exclude evidence offered by the Government.

Key Quotes (3)

"Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to exclude any evidence the Government seeks to admit at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005613.jpg
Quote #1
"the Government opted not to follow the requirements of the Rule and should now be foreclosed from offering any evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b)."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005613.jpg
Quote #2
"Prior to the rule change, the prosecution needed only to give notice of the “general nature” of the anticipated evidence"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005613.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,946 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 385 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 12
Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to exclude any evidence the Government seeks to admit at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (the “Rule”). That Rule, as amended in December 2020, expressly requires particularized notice to the defense of the exact evidence to be offered, an articulated non-propensity purpose for its admission, and the reasoning supporting that purpose. Despite notice of the rule change and an opportunity to comply with the Rule by this Court's deadline of October 11, the Government opted not to follow the requirements of the Rule and should now be foreclosed from offering any evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b).
BACKGROUND
I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b)
Rule 404 sets forth the requirements for "Notice in a Criminal Case" of an intent to introduce evidence under the rule:
“In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;
(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
(C) do so in writing before trial – or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.”
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3). In December 2020, the Rule was “amended principally to impose additional notice requirements in a criminal case.” Fed. R. Evid. 404, Advisory Committee Notes, 2020 Amendments. Prior to the rule change, the prosecution needed only to give notice of the “general nature” of the anticipated evidence; thus, “some courts...permit[ted] the government to satisfy the notice obligation without describing the specific act that the evidence would tend to prove, and without explaining the relevance of the evidence for a non-propensity purpose” (id.).
1
DOJ-OGR-00005613

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document