DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (motion in limine/suppression argument)
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 391) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, dated October 29, 2021. The defense argues that admitting seized evidence based on the affidavit of Detective Recarey violates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights because Recarey (the original custodian) is dead and unavailable for cross-examination. The text emphasizes that no other witness has sufficient personal knowledge of the seized items, their storage, or the 'confusing' handwritten notes in the inventory.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
The document argues for her Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses.
|
| Detective Recarey | Witness/Affiant (Deceased/Unavailable) |
Lead detective whose affidavit (Exhibit 295) is being challenged because he is unavailable for cross-examination rega...
|
| Recarey | Detective |
Identified as the only person familiar with the items seized, their content, storage, and disposition.
|
| Natale | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in United States v. Natale regarding evidence authenticity.
|
| Netschi | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in United States v. Netschi regarding foundation for email evidence.
|
| Muhanad Mahmoud Al-Farekh | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in case law regarding cross-examination limitations.
|
| Coy | Case Citation Name |
Referenced in Coy v. Iowa regarding 'face-to-face' confrontation rights.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case caption format (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced as '2d Cir.' in case citations.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced regarding the history of the Confrontation Clause.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Referenced in the footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00005733'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Recarey seized items relevant to Maxwell's prosecution; Maxwell's defense is challenging the use of his affidavit.
The admission of the seized evidence is based on Government Exhibit 295, the affidavit of Detective Recarey.
Key Quotes (4)
"Here, the original custodian of the evidence is dead and unavailable to testify at trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
Quote #1
"Detective Recarey’s Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell’s Right to Confront and Cross-Examine Witnesses"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
Quote #2
"Only Detective Recarey was familiar with the items seized, the content of the items seized, how the items were stored, and the disposition of those items."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
Quote #3
"The handwritten notes contained in the inventory are confusing and hearsay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,160 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 391 Filed 10/29/21 Page 8 of 11
1995). To be admitted, there must be substantial evidence from which it could be inferred that
the evidence is authentic. United States v. Natale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1173 (2d Cir.1975).
the evidence is authentic. United States v. Natale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1173 (2d Cir.1975).
Here, the original custodian of the evidence is dead and unavailable to testify at trial. The
handwritten notes contained in the inventory are confusing and hearsay. The evidence was
apparently transferred to case agents who will not be testifying in this trial. Accordingly, no
witness has sufficient personal knowledge about the proposed exhibits to satisfy either Fed. R.
Evid. 901 or 602. See United States v. Netschi, 511 F. App'x 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (no foundation
existed to establish that the emails were what the defendant asserted, and the proposed method of
introducing them through an investigator with no personal connection—beyond seeing them in
an inbox—was insufficient).
handwritten notes contained in the inventory are confusing and hearsay. The evidence was
apparently transferred to case agents who will not be testifying in this trial. Accordingly, no
witness has sufficient personal knowledge about the proposed exhibits to satisfy either Fed. R.
Evid. 901 or 602. See United States v. Netschi, 511 F. App'x 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2013) (no foundation
existed to establish that the emails were what the defendant asserted, and the proposed method of
introducing them through an investigator with no personal connection—beyond seeing them in
an inbox—was insufficient).
III. Detective Recarey’s Absence Implicates Ms. Maxwell’s Right to Confront and
Cross-Examine Witnesses
Cross-Examine Witnesses
The Confrontation Clause protects a criminal defendant's right to cross-examine
witnesses. Limitation on cross-examination may violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
Clause if it prevents the defendant from, among other things, exposing a witness's biases,
motivation, or incentives for lying, or eliciting testimony that is relevant and material to the
defense. United States v. Muhanad Mahmoud Al-Farekh, 956 F.3d 99, 114 (2d Cir. 2020). The
Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause entitles a criminal defendant to encounter witnesses
“face-to-face.” Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988). As the Supreme Court has noted, this
right “traces back to the beginnings of Western legal culture” and has, throughout generations,
ensured fairness in criminal proceedings—both actual and apparent. Id. at 1016–18.
witnesses. Limitation on cross-examination may violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
Clause if it prevents the defendant from, among other things, exposing a witness's biases,
motivation, or incentives for lying, or eliciting testimony that is relevant and material to the
defense. United States v. Muhanad Mahmoud Al-Farekh, 956 F.3d 99, 114 (2d Cir. 2020). The
Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause entitles a criminal defendant to encounter witnesses
“face-to-face.” Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017 (1988). As the Supreme Court has noted, this
right “traces back to the beginnings of Western legal culture” and has, throughout generations,
ensured fairness in criminal proceedings—both actual and apparent. Id. at 1016–18.
The admission of the seized evidence is based on Government Exhibit 295, the affidavit
of Detective Recarey. Only Detective Recarey was familiar with the items seized, the content of
the items seized, how the items were stored, and the disposition of those items. “The Sixth
of Detective Recarey. Only Detective Recarey was familiar with the items seized, the content of
the items seized, how the items were stored, and the disposition of those items. “The Sixth
5
DOJ-OGR-00005733
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document