DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
715 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
715 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically page 5 of 6 from Document 548 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. The Court denies the Defense's request for a witness to testify under a pseudonym, arguing that the witness does not qualify as a victim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because her anticipated testimony is that she was not a target of sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court distinguishes this situation from a prior ruling where pseudonyms were allowed to protect the identities of other, actual victims.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse and misconduct.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned as an alleged perpetrator of sexual misconduct and an offense.
|
|
| Ray |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ray'.
|
|
| Ippolito |
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re Ippolito'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Government's theory of the case'.
|
| Court | judicial body |
Mentioned throughout the document as the decision-making body in the legal case.
|
| Defense | legal team |
Mentioned throughout as a party in the case, arguing for a witness to use a pseudonym.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00008391'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The Court is analyzing and ruling on the Defense's motion for a witness to testify under a pseudonym.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation '(S.D.N.Y. 2020)', referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
They are mentioned together as alleged perpetrators of sexual misconduct.
Key Quotes (5)
"a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense."Source
— Crime Victims’ Rights Act
(The legal definition of a victim as cited from 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A).)
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
Quote #1
"expansive"Source
— Court/Legal Document
(Describing the Crime Victims' Rights Act's definition of a victim.)
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
Quote #2
"whether physically, financially, psychologically, or otherwise"Source
— Court/Legal Document
(Describing the ways in which a witness could have been harmed to qualify as a victim.)
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
Quote #3
"[O]ne does not acquire status under the CVRA based on his own say-so."Source
— In re Ippolito, 811 F. App’x 795, 797 (3d Cir. 2020)
(A quote from a legal precedent used to support the Court's argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
Quote #4
"because the disclosure of their identities would necessarily reveal the identities of the alleged victims."Source
— Court
(The Court's explanation for previously allowing two non-victims to testify under pseudonyms.)
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,111 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 548 Filed 12/15/21 Page 5 of 6
Fourth, the Defense argues that a pseudonym is justified for one witness because, under the Government’s theory of the case, she is a victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. There are at least two problems with this justification. First, based on the Defense’s current explanation of this witness’s anticipated testimony, this witness will testify that she was not the target of any sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. She would therefore fall outside the scope of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which defines a victim as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Though the Act’s definition of victim is “expansive,” the Defense has not identified a way in which this witness was harmed, “whether physically, financially, psychologically, or otherwise” by an offense allegedly committed by Ms. Maxwell. United States v. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see also In re Ippolito, 811 F. App’x 795, 797 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[O]ne does not acquire status under the CVRA based on his own say-so.”). Second, and relatedly, the Court understands that this witness will testify that sexual conduct did not occur. Consequently, the testimony does not raise the same risks of embarrassment or harassment as did the other witnesses’ testimony, nor does it risk deterring alleged victims of sexual abuse from coming forward in future cases. The Court therefore rejects this basis for permitting testimony under a pseudonym.
The Defense’s fifth argument is that the Court permitted two non-alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms, which justifies permitting its witnesses to do the same. But as the Court explained, it permitted two non-victims to testify under pseudonym only “because the disclosure of their identities would necessarily reveal the identities of the alleged victims.” Nov. 1 Tr. at 8. The Defense has not identified any similar dynamic here.
Last, the Court emphasizes that while it currently denies the Defense’s motion, the
5
DOJ-OGR-00008391
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document