DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
808 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (government response/memorandum of law in criminal case)
File Size:
808 KB
Summary
This document is page 143 of a legal filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against granting the defendant an evidentiary hearing regarding a 'Franks' analysis and asserts that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to obtain discovery or dismiss perjury counts. The Government contends that a jury should decide whether the defendant committed perjury during two depositions in a prior civil matter.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on case number), accused of perjury and seeking a hearing/disc...
|
| Rajaratnam | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in legal precedent United States v. Rajaratnam regarding Franks analysis.
|
| Rivera | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in legal precedent regarding the high standard for a Franks hearing.
|
| Urena | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in footnote regarding Rule 16 burden of proof.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
The party opposing the defendant's motion.
|
|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; submitting arguments regarding wiretaps.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited for legal precedent.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in the footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (jurisdiction of the cited case law and the current case).
|
Relationships (1)
Government is rebutting defendant's allegations and opposing her motions.
Key Quotes (4)
"The defendant’s bald assertions alone do not entitle her to a fishing expedition in the form of a hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
Quote #1
"The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
Quote #2
"Counts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that, during the course of two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
Quote #3
"On this record, the defendant has not made a threshold showing that the Government acted with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard for the truth."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,440 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 143 of 239
Government has responded with reliable information directly rebutting the defendant’s allegations,
there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing.44
there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing.44
The defendant cites Franks, to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion
falls far short of the standard required to obtain a hearing. “While the Franks analysis discussed
above is typically employed to evaluate misstatements and omissions relating to probable cause,
the Second Circuit has extended the Franks analysis to other Title III requirements for obtaining a
warrant.” United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402, at *18
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010). The defendant fails to identify the standard that would govern such a
hearing. In light of the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap, the USAO-SDNY submits that
the defendant’s depositions in a civil matter, even with a protective order, are no more significant
than the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap. As such, the exacting standard of Franks should
apply. On this record, the defendant has not made a threshold showing that the Government acted
with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard for the truth. The Franks standard is rightly a
“high one,” Rivera, 928 F.2d at 604, and one the defendant has failed to meet here.
falls far short of the standard required to obtain a hearing. “While the Franks analysis discussed
above is typically employed to evaluate misstatements and omissions relating to probable cause,
the Second Circuit has extended the Franks analysis to other Title III requirements for obtaining a
warrant.” United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402, at *18
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010). The defendant fails to identify the standard that would govern such a
hearing. In light of the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap, the USAO-SDNY submits that
the defendant’s depositions in a civil matter, even with a protective order, are no more significant
than the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap. As such, the exacting standard of Franks should
apply. On this record, the defendant has not made a threshold showing that the Government acted
with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard for the truth. The Franks standard is rightly a
“high one,” Rivera, 928 F.2d at 604, and one the defendant has failed to meet here.
The defendant’s bald assertions alone do not entitle her to a fishing expedition in the form
of a hearing.
of a hearing.
V. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury
Counts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that, during the course of two depositions, the
defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The
defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre-
defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The
defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre-
44 For similar reasons, the defendant’s request for discovery regarding this matter should be denied.
The defendant has failed to meet her burden under Rule 16 of making “a prima facie showing of
materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is
material.” Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d at 261 (citations omitted). Because the defendant has offered
nothing more than her conjecture, based on an inaccurate and hearsay-ridden article, that some
unspecified evidence might exist, her request for discovery should be denied.
The defendant has failed to meet her burden under Rule 16 of making “a prima facie showing of
materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is
material.” Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d at 261 (citations omitted). Because the defendant has offered
nothing more than her conjecture, based on an inaccurate and hearsay-ridden article, that some
unspecified evidence might exist, her request for discovery should be denied.
116
DOJ-OGR-00003077
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document