DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court brief/memorandum)
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 613) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against 'Juror No. 50's' request to intervene and obtain discovery, citing that the juror has no legal standing and is currently under criminal investigation. The prosecution argues that releasing information would allow the juror to tailor their testimony and prejudice the ongoing investigation into their conduct.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror/Suspect |
Subject of a criminal investigation; attempting to intervene in the case and request discovery; accused of wanting to...
|
| Aref | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Aref regarding public access intervention.
|
| Linda R.S. | Plaintiff (Case Citation) |
Cited in Linda R.S. v. Richard D. regarding private citizen interest in prosecution.
|
| Richard D. | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in Linda R.S. v. Richard D.
|
| Collins | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Collins regarding crime victim intervention rights.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implicit recipient of the filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
|
| RMI Co. |
Cited in United States v. RMI Co.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Inferred from Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00009060' and mention of 'the government' conducting the investigation.
|
|
| 3d Cir. |
Third Circuit Court of Appeals (cited).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Ongoing relative to document)
Investigation into the conduct of Juror No. 50.
Juror No. 50
The Government
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Eastern District of Wisconsin (cited in case law).
|
Relationships (1)
Text states 'It is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here' and refers to 'the government' tipping him off.
Key Quotes (4)
"Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
Quote #1
"It is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
Quote #2
"Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
Quote #3
"Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,943 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 59 of 66
F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis
for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to
intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008)
(motion to intervene to assert the public’s First Amendment right of access to criminal
proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States
v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of
allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek
protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the
outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal
case. This is a recognition of the general rule that “a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, “[e]ven crime victims,
who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the
district court in a criminal case.” United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D.
Wis. 2013).
for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to
intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008)
(motion to intervene to assert the public’s First Amendment right of access to criminal
proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States
v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of
allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek
protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the
outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal
case. This is a recognition of the general rule that “a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, “[e]ven crime victims,
who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the
district court in a criminal case.” United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D.
Wis. 2013).
B. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50’s discovery request because
Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information
requested would prejudice that investigation.
Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information
requested would prejudice that investigation.
It is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many
suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so
that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the
investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has
suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so
that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the
investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has
52
DOJ-OGR-00009060
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document