DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
687 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief
File Size:
687 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 of a legal filing from September 2020, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to consolidate a civil appeal with issues related to her criminal case. The text argues that Maxwell is prematurely trying to challenge the Government's evidence-gathering methods (subpoenas) in the appellate court before Judge Nathan has had the opportunity to rule on them in the District Court criminal trial.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the criminal investigation and the motion to consolidate appeals.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Presiding judge in the criminal case who has not yet ruled on the evidence issues.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff (Civil) |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; obtained evidence via subpoenas.
|
|
| District Court |
The lower court handling the criminal trial.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-16
Future/Pending
Potential motion to preclude evidence at criminal trial
District Court (Judge Nathan)
Relationships (2)
Mention of 'Giuffre v. Maxwell appeal'
Maxwell must assert claims before Judge Nathan in the criminal case.
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell’s motion to consolidate this matter with the Giuffre v. Maxwell appeal appears primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the Government’s methods of obtaining evidence"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
Quote #1
"It thus seems readily apparent that Maxwell intends to file a motion to preclude the use of such evidence at her criminal trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
Quote #2
"Any such arguments are properly heard in the criminal case in the first instance by the district judge"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,680 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page17 of 23
order it obtained during its criminal investigation on the grounds of inevitable
discovery, she will have the opportunity to assert such a claim before Judge
Nathan. If she is dissatisfied with Judge Nathan’s decision on that score, she can
raise the issue on appeal after the entry of final judgment.
discovery, she will have the opportunity to assert such a claim before Judge
Nathan. If she is dissatisfied with Judge Nathan’s decision on that score, she can
raise the issue on appeal after the entry of final judgment.
22. Further, given the substance of Maxwell’s motion to
consolidate, it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in
this appeal have been finally resolved. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate this
matter with the Giuffre v. Maxwell appeal appears primarily focused on attacking
the legitimacy of the Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends
to use to prosecute the criminal case through the Subpoenas to the Recipient. (See
Mot. at 10-12). It thus seems readily apparent that Maxwell intends to file a
motion to preclude the use of such evidence at her criminal trial. Yet she seeks to
have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the
civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by
the District Court in the criminal case. As Judge Nathan has not yet addressed (or
even had the opportunity to address) that issue in the criminal case, the issues
Maxwell raises on this appeal do not appear to be final. Any such arguments are
properly heard in the criminal case in the first instance by the district judge, “who
play[s] a ‘special role’ in managing ongoing litigation,” and who “can better
exercise [his or her] responsibility [to police the prejudment tactics of litigants] if
consolidate, it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in
this appeal have been finally resolved. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate this
matter with the Giuffre v. Maxwell appeal appears primarily focused on attacking
the legitimacy of the Government’s methods of obtaining evidence that it intends
to use to prosecute the criminal case through the Subpoenas to the Recipient. (See
Mot. at 10-12). It thus seems readily apparent that Maxwell intends to file a
motion to preclude the use of such evidence at her criminal trial. Yet she seeks to
have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on that issue in the context of the
civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by
the District Court in the criminal case. As Judge Nathan has not yet addressed (or
even had the opportunity to address) that issue in the criminal case, the issues
Maxwell raises on this appeal do not appear to be final. Any such arguments are
properly heard in the criminal case in the first instance by the district judge, “who
play[s] a ‘special role’ in managing ongoing litigation,” and who “can better
exercise [his or her] responsibility [to police the prejudment tactics of litigants] if
17
DOJ-OGR-00019383
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document