DOJ-OGR-00002294.jpg
752 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
752 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against including perjury counts in Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial. The author contends that doing so would force the relitigation of a complex and unresolved civil defamation case (dismissed in 2017), making the current trial unnecessarily long and confusing. Furthermore, it raises the issue that including these counts could force Ms. Maxwell's long-term lawyers to testify, potentially leading to their disqualification from the case.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Sweet | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who had not yet ruled on evidentiary challenges in a prior civil defamation case.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case. The document discusses the potential prejudice to her if Perjury Counts are included in he...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the criminal case, whose intentions regarding certain legal issues are questioned and whose ...
|
Timeline (3 events)
2017-05
A civil defamation case, which had generated over 900 docket entries and had many unresolved motions, was dismissed.
A criminal trial is being discussed, with arguments made against including perjury counts due to the potential for making it unnecessarily lengthy and confusing.
Depositions are mentioned in the context of a prior civil case, where questions were posed to alleged victims.
Relationships (1)
The document states that including Perjury Counts may require Ms. Maxwell's counsel to testify, which could lead to the disqualification of lawyers who have represented her for over five years.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,217 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 16 of 19
lawyer in a deposition, and a legal opinion about what was “material” in the context of the civil proceeding. It is unclear how the Government intends to address these issues, however, a trial with the perjury counts will necessarily involve litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial, making the trial of this case unnecessarily lengthy and confusing. By May, 2017, shortly before the civil defamation case was dismissed, the matter had generated over 900 docket entries. Approximately 50 substantive motions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony, deposition testimony, and the admissibility of evidence remained unresolved. Judge Sweet had yet to rule on evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes wheeled into his courtroom on dollies. A trial involving the perjury counts may well involve revisiting all of these unresolved issues.
Inclusion of the Perjury Counts injects into this case the performance and credibility of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers and may require Ms. Maxwell’s counsel of choice to testify. Presumably, this would result in disqualification of lawyers who have represented Ms. Maxwell for over five years from the entire trial, even though there is no reason why their testimony would be required in connection with the Mann Act Counts. See, Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7.
Severance is still appropriate even though the government alleges that some of the questions posed at the depositions related to some of the alleged victims in this case. Indictment ¶¶ 2, 8. Even if the government uses some minimal amount of overlapping evidence to prove both the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts, the miniscule gain in efficiency of introducing proof is far outweighed by the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial and by the risk of substantial prejudice to the defendant discussed above. See Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398 (severing witness tampering charges from RICO conspiracy charges in the interests of judicial economy, despite fact that government would have
12
DOJ-OGR-00002294
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document