DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg
553 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / letter to court (defense sentencing submission)
File Size:
553 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 21, 2022. The defense argues that the sentencing hearing should not be an 'open forum' for alleged victims who were not part of the trial record, specifically naming Ms. Ransome and Ms. Stein as individuals who should not qualify as 'crime victims' under the CVRA for this specific case. The letter distinguishes Maxwell's case from the abatement of the Epstein case and requests advance notice of who will be permitted to speak at sentencing.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bobbi C. Sternheim | Defense Attorney |
Signatory of the letter representing the defendant.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the sentencing proceeding (Ghislaine Maxwell).
|
| Epstein | Deceased Defendant |
Referenced in case citation 'United States v. Epstein' regarding abatement rules.
|
| Judge Berman | Judge |
Presided over the Epstein abatement proceeding referenced for comparison.
|
| Ms. Ransome | Alleged Victim |
Defense argues she is not part of the record and questions her right to speak at sentencing.
|
| Ms. Stein | Alleged Victim |
Defense argues she is not part of the record and questions her right to speak at sentencing.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government Counsel |
Copied on the letter (Prosecution).
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Implied by citation (2d Cir. 1998).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-06-21
Unknown (Past)
Public hearing regarding dismissal of Epstein indictment (nolle prosequi).
Court
Relationships (3)
Sternheim signs the letter advocating for Maxwell's sentencing conditions.
Letter mentions Ransome as an alleged victim attempting to speak at Maxwell's sentencing.
Letter mentions Stein as an alleged victim attempting to speak at Maxwell's sentencing.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open forum for any alleged victim to be heard."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg
Quote #1
"Neither Ms. Ransome nor Ms. Stein are part of the record in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg
Quote #2
"We request a preview of the manner in which the Court will conduct the sentencing proceeding and advance notice of the individuals who will be permitted to speak."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg
Quote #3
"Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open forum for anyone to come forward who was not identified as a victim of the charged offenses."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,507 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 667 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 2
dies before the final judgment is issued, the Indictment must be dismissed under the rule of
abatement. See United States v. Wright 160 F.3d 905, 908 (2d Cir. 1998). Although the Court
was required to dismiss the indictment, it conducted a public hearing and provided Epstein’s
victims a forum to be heard prior to signing the nolle prosequi. See United States v. Epstein, 19
Cr. 490 (RMB), Dkt. 53.
abatement. See United States v. Wright 160 F.3d 905, 908 (2d Cir. 1998). Although the Court
was required to dismiss the indictment, it conducted a public hearing and provided Epstein’s
victims a forum to be heard prior to signing the nolle prosequi. See United States v. Epstein, 19
Cr. 490 (RMB), Dkt. 53.
The victim statements in Judge Berman’s proceeding had no impact on the rights of a
defendant whose case is abated. Such is not the case here. While it is appropriate for victims to
be present pursuant to the CVRA, Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open
forum for any alleged victim to be heard. Neither Ms. Ransome nor Ms. Stein are part of the
record in this case. We are concerned about the impact statements by alleged victims who were
not part of the trial or whose names are not part of the record and who otherwise do not qualify
as “crime victims” under the CVRA will have on the Court’s sentencing determination. We
request a preview of the manner in which the Court will conduct the sentencing proceeding and
advance notice of the individuals who will be permitted to speak.
defendant whose case is abated. Such is not the case here. While it is appropriate for victims to
be present pursuant to the CVRA, Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open
forum for any alleged victim to be heard. Neither Ms. Ransome nor Ms. Stein are part of the
record in this case. We are concerned about the impact statements by alleged victims who were
not part of the trial or whose names are not part of the record and who otherwise do not qualify
as “crime victims” under the CVRA will have on the Court’s sentencing determination. We
request a preview of the manner in which the Court will conduct the sentencing proceeding and
advance notice of the individuals who will be permitted to speak.
Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open forum for anyone to come
forward who was not identified as a victim of the charged offenses.
forward who was not identified as a victim of the charged offenses.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Bobbi C. Sternheim
/s/
Bobbi C. Sternheim
cc: Government Counsel
2
DOJ-OGR-00010531
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document