DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg

717 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing (motion for evidentiary hearing/suppression)
File Size: 717 KB
Summary

This document is page 16 (filed page 21 of 23) of a defense motion in the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The defense argues for an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged coordination between the government and a redacted third party who provided Maxwell's 2016 civil deposition transcripts to 'stir up a criminal prosecution.' The motion requests the suppression of evidence obtained from this redacted party, specifically the April and July 2016 depositions, and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Movant
Requesting an evidentiary hearing and suppression of evidence regarding the government's coordination with a redacted...
The Prosecutor Government Representative
Accused of potentially knowing (or being reckless in not knowing) about a redacted party's efforts to stir up prosecu...
[REDACTED] Witness/Informant (Implied)
Name redacted; approached the prosecutor's office to 'stir up a criminal prosecution' and 'dangled the deposition tra...

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.)
The court handling Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
Prosecutor's Office
Received information and depositions from the redacted party.
Chemical Bank
Referenced in legal argument regarding 'Chemical Bank collusion' (referring to a legal standard/precedent).
DOJ-OGR
Source of the document (footer stamp).

Timeline (3 events)

2021-02-04
Filing of Document 134
S.D.N.Y. Court
Defense Counsel
April 2016
Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell
Unknown
July 2016
Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell
Unknown

Locations (1)

Location Context
Southern District of New York (cited in case law).

Relationships (1)

The Prosecutor Alleged Collusion/Coordination [REDACTED]
Defense argues the prosecutor coordinated with the redacted party prior to the grand jury subpoena.

Key Quotes (3)

"prosecutor knew (or was reckless in not knowing) that [REDACTED] had previously approached his office... in an effort to stir up a criminal prosecution and dangled the deposition transcripts as a carrot"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
Quote #1
"suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
Quote #2
"no Chemical Bank collusion had occurred"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,105 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 21 of 23
B. At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell May Inquire Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government’s Misrepresentations To [REDACTED]
If the Court is disinclined to grant relief on the present record, then at a minimum it should hold an evidentiary hearing to probe the government’s misstatements to [REDACTED] and the extent to which the prosecutor’s office had, in fact, coordinated with [REDACTED] prior to the issuance of the grand jury subpoena. These factual issues go directly to whether the predicate finding for [REDACTED] ruling—namely, that no Chemical Bank collusion had occurred—was mistaken. See, e.g., United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) (“An evidentiary hearing is normally required to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute.”).
An evidentiary hearing is warranted for an additional reason as well: If it turns out that the prosecutor knew (or was reckless in not knowing) that [REDACTED] had previously approached his office, both before and after the Maxwell depositions, in an effort to stir up a criminal prosecution and dangled the deposition transcripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions in the warrant or wiretap application were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and, if so, whether any such misstatements or omissions were material.”).
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained from [REDACTED] and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July 2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six.
Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion.
16
DOJ-OGR-00002368

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document