DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
652 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief
File Size:
652 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 28, 2020) outlines a dispute over appellate jurisdiction. Ms. Maxwell is requesting permission to share facts with another judge under seal. The document argues against the government's position that the court lacks jurisdiction, asserting that Judge Nathan's previous order meets the requirements of the 'collateral order doctrine' despite the government's strict interpretation.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Requesting permission to share facts with another judge; subject of the appeal.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Issued the order being appealed which 'conclusively determined the disputed question'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Arguing against jurisdiction for the appeal.
|
|
| Article III judge |
Recipient of facts Ms. Maxwell wishes to share.
|
|
| Midland Asphalt Corp. |
Cited in case law regarding collateral order doctrine.
|
|
| United States |
Cited in case law (Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States; Flanagan v. United States).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-09-28
Legal argument regarding jurisdiction and the collateral order doctrine in Case 20-3061.
Appellate Court (implied)
Ms. Maxwell
The Government
Relationships (2)
Maxwell is appealing Judge Nathan's order.
Opposing sides in the legal argument regarding jurisdiction.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with another Article III judge."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
Quote #1
"The government is wrong."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
Quote #2
"Judge Nathan’s order (1) conclusively determined the disputed question, (2) it resolved an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
Quote #3
"the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted 'with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,491 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page5 of 15
Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with
another Article III judge.
another Article III judge.
The government argues there is no jurisdiction for this Court to consider this
appeal. Doc. 37. Quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, the government
says the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted “with the utmost strictness in
criminal cases.” 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465
U.S. 259, 265 (1984)). Doc. 37 at 8. According to the government, in criminal cases
the doctrine applies only to orders denying a bond, orders denying a motion to
dismiss on double jeopardy ground, orders denying a motion to dismiss under the
Speech and Debate Clause, and orders permitting the forced administration of
antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for trial. Doc. 37 at 9. The
government is wrong.
appeal. Doc. 37. Quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, the government
says the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted “with the utmost strictness in
criminal cases.” 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465
U.S. 259, 265 (1984)). Doc. 37 at 8. According to the government, in criminal cases
the doctrine applies only to orders denying a bond, orders denying a motion to
dismiss on double jeopardy ground, orders denying a motion to dismiss under the
Speech and Debate Clause, and orders permitting the forced administration of
antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for trial. Doc. 37 at 9. The
government is wrong.
To be sure, this appeal does not concern one of the four types of orders
identified by the government. But that doesn’t mean the appeal isn’t proper under
the collateral order doctrine, particularly when there is no serious argument that it
satisfies each of the doctrine’s three requirements: Judge Nathan’s order
(1) conclusively determined the disputed question, (2) it resolved an important
issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively
unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Will, 546 U.S. at 349.
identified by the government. But that doesn’t mean the appeal isn’t proper under
the collateral order doctrine, particularly when there is no serious argument that it
satisfies each of the doctrine’s three requirements: Judge Nathan’s order
(1) conclusively determined the disputed question, (2) it resolved an important
issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively
unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Will, 546 U.S. at 349.
4
DOJ-OGR-00019596
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document