DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
679 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing
File Size:
679 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on August 25, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses the Defendant's request regarding pretrial disclosure schedules (denied without prejudice) and conditions of confinement. Specifically, the Court denies Maxwell's request for a court order mandating her release to the general population and specific discovery access, noting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has already modified conditions to allow her 13 hours of access to discovery materials daily.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the confinement conditions discussion; requesting release to general population and increased discovery ac...
|
| The Court | Judge/Authority |
Denies the defendant's request regarding conditions of confinement; issues the order.
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal Representation |
Authorized to seek intervention if facts regarding access to legal materials change.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Responded to the defendant's motion regarding BOP conditions.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Ms. Maxwell is detained by the BOP and subject to their conditions of confinement.
Maxwell is the Defendant in the case presided over by The Court.
Key Quotes (5)
"The denial is therefore without prejudice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
Quote #1
"[BOP] to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
Quote #2
"the BOP has modified the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement so that she has access to discovery materials thirteen hours a day, seven days a week."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court denies this request."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
Quote #4
"Further action by the Court as this juncture is therefore unnecessary."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,979 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 49 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 4
alleged victims and witnesses substantially in advance of trial. But that alone does not justify
such relief at this very early stage. Following the close of discovery, the parties should meet and
confer on an appropriate schedule in light of all relevant factors. If the parties are unable to
reach agreement as to a pretrial disclosure schedule, the Defendant may renew her request. The
denial is therefore without prejudice.
such relief at this very early stage. Following the close of discovery, the parties should meet and
confer on an appropriate schedule in light of all relevant factors. If the parties are unable to
reach agreement as to a pretrial disclosure schedule, the Defendant may renew her request. The
denial is therefore without prejudice.
II. The Defendant’s Conditions of Confinement
In her August 10, 2020 letter motion, the Defendant also sought “an order directing
[BOP] to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with
increased access to the discovery materials while she is detained so that she can meaningfully
participate in the preparation of her defense.” Dkt. No. 38 at 1. The Government responded that
the BOP has modified the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement so that she has access to
discovery materials thirteen hours a day, seven days a week. Dkt. No. 41 at 5. The Defendant’s
reply credited the BOP’s change in policy but nonetheless asked the Court to “confirm these
changes in an order to the BOP” and “that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. Maxwell the
same privileges given to other detainees.” Dkt. No. 42 at 4–5.
[BOP] to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with
increased access to the discovery materials while she is detained so that she can meaningfully
participate in the preparation of her defense.” Dkt. No. 38 at 1. The Government responded that
the BOP has modified the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement so that she has access to
discovery materials thirteen hours a day, seven days a week. Dkt. No. 41 at 5. The Defendant’s
reply credited the BOP’s change in policy but nonetheless asked the Court to “confirm these
changes in an order to the BOP” and “that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. Maxwell the
same privileges given to other detainees.” Dkt. No. 42 at 4–5.
The Court denies this request. The BOP is providing the Defendant with conditions that
allow her access to discovery materials so that she can meaningfully participate in the
preparation of her defense. Further action by the Court as this juncture is therefore unnecessary.
Should facts on the ground change such that the Defendant is not being provided sufficient
access to her legal materials, defense counsel may seek intervention by the Court.
allow her access to discovery materials so that she can meaningfully participate in the
preparation of her defense. Further action by the Court as this juncture is therefore unnecessary.
Should facts on the ground change such that the Defendant is not being provided sufficient
access to her legal materials, defense counsel may seek intervention by the Court.
The Defendant also requests that the Court order BOP that Ms. Maxwell “be monitored
in the same manner as other pretrial detainees and that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms.
in the same manner as other pretrial detainees and that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms.
2
DOJ-OGR-00001744
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document