EFTA00010037.pdf
136 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence (letter motion)
File Size:
136 KB
Summary
This document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated November 12, 2021, regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government seeks clarification on two pretrial matters: limiting cross-examination regarding the specific genres of witnesses' acting careers (e.g., action vs. soap opera) to protect their identities, and ensuring the ban on courtroom sketch artists drawing the likenesses of pseudonymized witnesses.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Recipient of the letter; United States District Court Judge.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Damian Williams | United States Attorney |
Signatory of the letter representing the Government.
|
| Minor Victims and witnesses | Witnesses/Victims |
Individuals testifying under pseudonyms whose identities the government seeks to protect.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Justice |
Sender organization.
|
|
| United States Attorney Southern District of New York |
Specific office sending the letter.
|
|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Recipient court.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Office address of the US Attorney.
|
|
|
Address of the Court.
|
Relationships (2)
Williams is the US Attorney prosecuting Maxwell in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
Nathan is the presiding judge in Maxwell's criminal case.
Key Quotes (5)
"Specifically, the Government agrees that the witnesses can be cross examined about their professions (e.g. that they are actors), and the general arcs of those careers (e.g. that they had work, or they did not; on a TV show or in a movie)."Source
EFTA00010037.pdf
Quote #1
"But there is no 'particularized need' to identify the type of movie or TV show (e.g., an action movie as opposed to a soap opera)"Source
EFTA00010037.pdf
Quote #2
"the notion that an actor works on one type of show rather than another says nothing about her credibility."Source
EFTA00010037.pdf
Quote #3
"But it creates significant risk of identifying the relevant Minor Victims and witnesses by narrowing the field of people whose careers match the description"Source
EFTA00010037.pdf
Quote #4
"the Government seeks clarification that the Court's November 1, 2021 order permitting witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or first names includes an order barring courtroom sketch artists from drawing the exact likeness of those individuals."Source
EFTA00010037.pdf
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,802 characters)
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
November 12, 2021
BY ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
The Government respectfully submits this letter seeking clarification on two items from the November 1, 2021 pretrial conference.
First, when describing the defendant's ability to cross-examine witnesses who will be testifying under pseudonyms, the Court explained that:
All lines of inquiry the defense outlined in its response are available without disclosing specific names of employers or other specifically identifying information. For example, the defense can probe the genre, nature, and trajectories of witnesses' careers without eliciting the specific employer name, but the defense's cross-examination should not include specifically identifying information, and counsel must act responsibly doing so.
(11/01/21 Tr. at 11:20-12:2). The Government seeks clarification before trial about the line between permissible and impermissible cross-examination about the "genre" of witnesses' careers.
Specifically, the Government agrees that the witnesses can be cross examined about their professions (e.g. that they are actors), and the general arcs of those careers (e.g. that they had work, or they did not; on a TV show or in a movie). (See Gov't Reply ISO Mot. in Limine, Dkt. No. 393, at 17-18). But there is no "particularized need" to identify the type of movie or TV show (e.g., an action movie as opposed to a soap opera) (11/01/21 Tr. at 10:8-11). That information has no impeachment value—the notion that an actor works on one type of show rather than another says nothing about her credibility. But it creates significant risk of identifying the relevant Minor Victims and witnesses by narrowing the field of people whose careers match the description elicited by the defense at the times elicited by the defense, and in combination with the other information about them that will be available at trial.
Second, the Government seeks clarification that the Court's November 1, 2021 order permitting witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or first names includes an order barring courtroom sketch artists from drawing the exact likeness of those individuals. (See Gov't Mot. in Limine, Dkt. No. 380, at 16 n.7 (making this request)); see May 6, 2019 Text Order, Raniere, 18 Cr. 204 (NGG)(E.D.N.Y.) ("Sketch artists . . . may not draw exact likenesses of jurors or witnesses other than co-defendants should they testify . . . ."). It would defeat the purpose of the Court's order if the exact likeness of those witnesses could be drawn and subsequently publicized in the media. Although courtroom sketch artists might voluntarily elect not to sketch these witness's faces, the Government seeks an order so it can provide certainty to these witnesses in advance of their testimony.
1 The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of the witnesses whom the Court has authorized to testify using pseudonyms or their first names.
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
United States Attorney
By: s/ [REDACTED SIGNATURE BLOCK]
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
EFTA00010037
EFTA00010038
EFTA00010039
EFTA00010037
EFTA00010038
EFTA00010039
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document