DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/motion in limine)
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated December 6, 2021. It argues against the defense's claim that a witness named Jane waived her attorney-client privilege regarding advice received from her lawyer, Glassman, about cooperating with the government. The text asserts that Jane did not authorize a waiver, did not testify about privileged communications, and that any statements made by Glassman to the government do not constitute a subject matter waiver for Jane.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Subject of attorney-client privilege dispute; testifying witness.
|
| Glassman | Attorney |
Jane's attorney; discussed regarding potential waiver of privilege.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding authority; quoted regarding who holds the privilege.
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Party arguing for waiver (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on case number 1:20-cr-00330).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; party Jane is cooperating with.
|
|
| Victim's Compensation Fund |
Entity mentioned regarding potential financial claims by Jane.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Relationships (2)
References to 'Glassman’s advice to Jane', 'her attorney', and 'attorney-client communication'.
References to 'assisting the Government' and 'her cooperation with the Government'.
Key Quotes (5)
"there is no reason to think Jane expressly or implicitly authorized Glassman to waive her privilege on the topic of Glassman’s advice to Jane about assisting the Government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
Quote #1
"THE COURT: “Well right. But whether he waived – whether the privilege – it’s the client’s to waive, I think.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
Quote #2
"Jane was asked whether she “knew” that her cooperation with the Government would benefit her civil litigation or her claim with the victim’s compensation fund, and she said no."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
Quote #3
"It is the defense which is injecting the attorney-client relationship into the trial by attempting to use privileged communications to impeach Jane."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
Quote #4
"But Jane did not voluntarily disclose any privileged information."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,129 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 528 Filed 12/06/21 Page 6 of 8
there is no reason to think Jane expressly or implicitly authorized Glassman to waive her privilege
on the topic of Glassman’s advice to Jane about assisting the Government. Despite the Court’s
invitation, the defendant has offered no argument to the contrary. 12/01/21 Tr. at 573 (“THE
COURT: “Well right. But whether he waived – whether the privilege – it’s the client’s to waive,
I think. That will be part of the briefing, I suppose.”).
on the topic of Glassman’s advice to Jane about assisting the Government. Despite the Court’s
invitation, the defendant has offered no argument to the contrary. 12/01/21 Tr. at 573 (“THE
COURT: “Well right. But whether he waived – whether the privilege – it’s the client’s to waive,
I think. That will be part of the briefing, I suppose.”).
Nor is this a case in which Jane impliedly waived privilege. Jane has not testified
“concerning portions of the attorney-client communication,” placed “the attorney-client
relationship directly at issue,” or asserted “reliance on an attorney’s advice as an element of a claim
or defense.” In re County of Erie, 546 F.3d at 228. On that first point, Jane was asked whether
she “knew” that her cooperation with the Government would benefit her civil litigation or her
claim with the victim’s compensation fund, and she said no. 12/1/21 Tr. at 581. Neither of those
answers described portions of her communications with her attorney. It is the defense which is
injecting the attorney-client relationship into the trial by attempting to use privileged
communications to impeach Jane. That cannot constitute a privilege waiver by Jane.³
“concerning portions of the attorney-client communication,” placed “the attorney-client
relationship directly at issue,” or asserted “reliance on an attorney’s advice as an element of a claim
or defense.” In re County of Erie, 546 F.3d at 228. On that first point, Jane was asked whether
she “knew” that her cooperation with the Government would benefit her civil litigation or her
claim with the victim’s compensation fund, and she said no. 12/1/21 Tr. at 581. Neither of those
answers described portions of her communications with her attorney. It is the defense which is
injecting the attorney-client relationship into the trial by attempting to use privileged
communications to impeach Jane. That cannot constitute a privilege waiver by Jane.³
Third, even if Glassman’s statement to the Government could waive Jane’s privilege, the
Court should exclude that evidence under Rule 403. Any waiver would at most cover whatever
statement Glassman made to the Government, and not the subject matter of his advice to Jane
about cooperation. See 12/01/21 (defense counsel stating that “whatever he communicated to the
government is what was waived. I don’t think he’s waived – I’m not arguing for subject matter
waiver, for example.”). The defense has other avenues to suggest that cooperating with the
Court should exclude that evidence under Rule 403. Any waiver would at most cover whatever
statement Glassman made to the Government, and not the subject matter of his advice to Jane
about cooperation. See 12/01/21 (defense counsel stating that “whatever he communicated to the
government is what was waived. I don’t think he’s waived – I’m not arguing for subject matter
waiver, for example.”). The defense has other avenues to suggest that cooperating with the
3 For these reasons, the cases cited by the defense are inapposite. (Def. Letter at 3-4). They concern
voluntary disclosures of privileged information. But Jane did not voluntarily disclose any
privileged information.
voluntary disclosures of privileged information. But Jane did not voluntarily disclose any
privileged information.
6
DOJ-OGR-00008242
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document