DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
702 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
702 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on December 15, 2021, is a court filing arguing against the Defense's request for witness anonymity for Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that the Defense's concerns about publicity are common in high-profile cases and do not meet the standard for granting pseudonyms, unlike the alleged victims who have a statutory right to privacy. It heavily cites the precedent of *United States v. Rainiere*, where a similar request for anonymity for supporters was denied because the public's interest in access prevailed over privacy concerns for matters not traditionally considered private.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Rainiere | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in a cited analogous case, United States v. Rainiere.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the current case, whose right to present a defense is implicated by the issue of witnes...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Government | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of "the Government's case" where alleged victims received pseudonyms.
|
| Court | Government agency |
Referenced throughout the document as the decision-making body in both the current case and the cited Rainiere case.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Eastern District of New York, the court where the cited case United States v. Rainiere was heard.
|
Relationships (1)
The document discusses the Defense's argument that its witnesses require anonymity to protect them from harassment and to ensure they will testify, which implicates Ms. Maxwell's right to present a defense.
Key Quotes (5)
"dignity and privacy"Source
— U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8))
(Describing the statutory right of alleged victims, which the Defense's witnesses do not have.)
DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
Quote #1
"the authors of supportive letters may face retribution if their identities are publicly known, given the public attention that has been paid to this case"Source
— Defense in United States v. Rainiere
(Argument made for anonymity of individuals who submitted letters in support of the defendant Rainiere.)
DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
Quote #2
"will have a chilling effect on individuals who wish to speak in support of defendants in other high-profile prosecutions."Source
— Defense in United States v. Rainiere
(Argument that failing to grant anonymity would deter future character witnesses in high-profile cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
Quote #3
"genuine interest in assisting sentencing while remaining out of the public eye themselves,"Source
— The court in United States v. Rainiere
(The court's acknowledgement of the letter writers' motivations in the Rainiere case.)
DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
Quote #4
"not involve traditionally private matters"Source
— The court in United States v. Rainiere
(The court's conclusion about the content of the supportive letters, which led to the denial of anonymity.)
DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,048 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 548 Filed 12/15/21 Page 3 of 6
requested relief is unprecedented.
The Defense raises several specific arguments in favor of its unprecedented request.
First, the Defense argues that anonymity is necessary to protect its witnesses from scrutiny and harassment because of the significant publicity this case has garnered. But these generalized concerns are present in every high-profile criminal case. They do not present the rare circumstances that prior courts have found justify the use of pseudonyms. Further, the alleged victims that received pseudonyms during the Government’s case have a statutory right to have their “dignity and privacy” protected. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The Defense’s witnesses have no similar right.
Perhaps most analogous to Defendant’s request is United States v. Rainiere, United States v. Rainiere, No. 18-CR-204S1 (NGG), 2021 WL 4522298 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2021), another high-profile case involving alleged sexual misconduct. There, after a defendant pled guilty, the defense sought to keep letters submitted in support of the defendant at sentencing anonymous, arguing that anonymity was necessary because “the authors of supportive letters may face retribution if their identities are publicly known, given the public attention that has been paid to this case” and that failure to do so “will have a chilling effect on individuals who wish to speak in support of defendants in other high-profile prosecutions.” Id. at *3–4. The court acknowledged the individuals’ “genuine interest in assisting sentencing while remaining out of the public eye themselves,” but concluded that their letters about the defendant did “not involve traditionally private matters” and that the public’s interest in access prevailed. Id. at *4. The Court concludes that the same analysis applies here.
Second, and relatedly, the Defense argues that without pseudonyms, its witnesses may refuse to testify, implicating Ms. Maxwell’s right to present a defense. The Court notes the late-
The Defense raises several specific arguments in favor of its unprecedented request.
First, the Defense argues that anonymity is necessary to protect its witnesses from scrutiny and harassment because of the significant publicity this case has garnered. But these generalized concerns are present in every high-profile criminal case. They do not present the rare circumstances that prior courts have found justify the use of pseudonyms. Further, the alleged victims that received pseudonyms during the Government’s case have a statutory right to have their “dignity and privacy” protected. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The Defense’s witnesses have no similar right.
Perhaps most analogous to Defendant’s request is United States v. Rainiere, United States v. Rainiere, No. 18-CR-204S1 (NGG), 2021 WL 4522298 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2021), another high-profile case involving alleged sexual misconduct. There, after a defendant pled guilty, the defense sought to keep letters submitted in support of the defendant at sentencing anonymous, arguing that anonymity was necessary because “the authors of supportive letters may face retribution if their identities are publicly known, given the public attention that has been paid to this case” and that failure to do so “will have a chilling effect on individuals who wish to speak in support of defendants in other high-profile prosecutions.” Id. at *3–4. The court acknowledged the individuals’ “genuine interest in assisting sentencing while remaining out of the public eye themselves,” but concluded that their letters about the defendant did “not involve traditionally private matters” and that the public’s interest in access prevailed. Id. at *4. The Court concludes that the same analysis applies here.
Second, and relatedly, the Defense argues that without pseudonyms, its witnesses may refuse to testify, implicating Ms. Maxwell’s right to present a defense. The Court notes the late-
3
DOJ-OGR-00008389
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document