This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tagliaferro | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Tagliaferro regarding Rule 17(c).
|
| Ulbricht | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Ulbricht regarding the purpose of subpoenas.
|
| Chambers | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Chambers regarding abrogation on other grounds.
|
| Purin | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Purin regarding subpoenas not being for discovery.
|
| Cherry | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Cherry regarding broad pretrial subpoenas.
|
| Gross | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Gross regarding obtaining leads.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced as explaining the intent of Rule 16 and Rule 17.
|
|
| Bowman Dairy Co. |
Party in the cited case Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States.
|
|
| United States |
Party in multiple cited cases.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, cited in case references.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case references.
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated in footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York
|
"“[i]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms.”"Source
"“A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery.”"Source
"Rule 17(c) cannot be used “to obtain leads as to the existence of additional documentary evidence or to seek information relating to the defendant’s case.”"Source
"The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of” specific materials that the parties intend to offer into evidence."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,267 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document