DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
699 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief
File Size:
699 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal brief (Document 38, Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It argues against an immediate appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the unsealing of civil case documents. The text contends that any potential prejudice to her criminal trial (due to publicity) can be adequately addressed through a standard appeal after a final judgment, rather than an interlocutory appeal.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant / Appellant |
The subject of the legal argument; arguing that unsealing civil filings will cause unfair pretrial publicity in her c...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who presumably denied or handled the modification of the Protective Order.
|
| Sabhnani | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Sabhnani regarding post-judgment appeal on publicity bias.
|
| Elfgeeh | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in United States v. Elfgeeh regarding post-judgment appeal on publicity bias.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR' at the bottom.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedents.
|
|
| Mohawk Indus. |
Company cited in a Supreme Court legal precedent.
|
Relationships (1)
Text mentions 'had Judge Nathan permitted modification of the Protective Order' relevant to Maxwell's case.
Key Quotes (2)
"To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, such a concern is not an issue that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
Quote #1
"Should the Court determine that the jury at Maxwell’s trial was biased based on disclosure of material in a civil case... then vacatur of the defendant’s conviction – if warranted – will adequately vindicate the defendant’s"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019381.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,684 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page15 of 23
appeal from unsealing of competency evaluation because “any alleged incursions
on criminal defendants’ rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing
order effectively unreviewable on appeal”); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district
court’s refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because “[r]eversal
after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by
defendant); cf. Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 109 (holding that orders to disclose
privileged information are not immediately appealable even though they “intrude[]
on the confidentiality of attorney-client communications”).
on criminal defendants’ rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing
order effectively unreviewable on appeal”); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district
court’s refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because “[r]eversal
after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]” asserted by
defendant); cf. Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 109 (holding that orders to disclose
privileged information are not immediately appealable even though they “intrude[]
on the confidentiality of attorney-client communications”).
20. To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a
civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, such a concern
is not an issue that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Indeed, that very issue has been reviewed by this Court in multiple cases on post-
judgment appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 232-34 (2d
Cir. 2010) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased the
venire); United States v. Elfgeeh, 515 F.3d 100, 128-31 (2d Cir. 2008) (evaluating
on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial jurors). Should the Court
determine that the jury at Maxwell’s trial was biased based on disclosure of
material in a civil case, and that such material would not have been unsealed had
Judge Nathan permitted modification of the Protective Order, then vacatur of the
defendant’s conviction – if warranted – will adequately vindicate the defendant’s
civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, such a concern
is not an issue that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Indeed, that very issue has been reviewed by this Court in multiple cases on post-
judgment appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 232-34 (2d
Cir. 2010) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased the
venire); United States v. Elfgeeh, 515 F.3d 100, 128-31 (2d Cir. 2008) (evaluating
on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial jurors). Should the Court
determine that the jury at Maxwell’s trial was biased based on disclosure of
material in a civil case, and that such material would not have been unsealed had
Judge Nathan permitted modification of the Protective Order, then vacatur of the
defendant’s conviction – if warranted – will adequately vindicate the defendant’s
15
DOJ-OGR-00019381
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document