DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion (united states district court, southern district of new york)
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This document is page 135 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the current case is distinguishable from past precedents regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of false evidence. The text asserts that the defendant has not been deprived of a fair trial and notes that a jury will determine if her statements during April and July 2016 depositions were perjurious.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text discusses her right to a ...
|
| Prosecutor | Government Representative |
Discussed in the context of legal standards for misconduct and due process violations.
|
| Miller | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Miller v. Pate (1967) and Greer v. Miller (1987).
|
| Pate | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Miller v. Pate (1967).
|
| Valentine | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited as a case distinguishable from the instant case regarding mischaracterization of testimony.
|
| Mills | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Mills v. Scully (1987).
|
| Scully | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Mills v. Scully (1987).
|
| Blissett | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Blissett v. Lefevre (1991).
|
| Lefevre | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Blissett v. Lefevre (1991).
|
| Greer | Legal Precedent Name |
Cited in Greer v. Miller (1987).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; cited for legal precedents.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution in the case.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (1)
The document discusses the Government's theory and the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Key Quotes (3)
"The instant case is easily distinguishable from Valentine, as it does not involve any of the same facts, including any alleged mischaracterization of grand jury testimony at trial or any prosecutor making 'knowing use of false evidence.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
Quote #1
"Prosecutorial misconduct denies a defendant due process only when it is ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
Quote #2
"A jury will hear testimony about the defendant’s statements during her April and July 2016 depositions, along with other evidence, and determine if her statements were perjurious."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,156 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 135 of 239
and held that it was a due process violation for the prosecutor to suggest that certain witnesses,
who had not testified at trial but who had testified before the grand jury, supported the
Government’s theory of the case, when in fact their testimony before the grand jury did not. Id.
The Second Circuit stated that this action “violated the due process prohibition against a
prosecutor’s making ‘knowing use of false evidence,’ including by misrepresenting the nature of
nontestimonial evidence.” Id. at 570-71 (quoting Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1967)). The
Second Circuit further noted that reversal of a criminal conviction is a “drastic remedy that courts
are generally reluctant to implement,” and that the court would only do so “when a prosecutor’s
tactics cause substantial prejudice to the defendant and thereby serve to deprive him of his right to
a fair trial.” Id.
who had not testified at trial but who had testified before the grand jury, supported the
Government’s theory of the case, when in fact their testimony before the grand jury did not. Id.
The Second Circuit stated that this action “violated the due process prohibition against a
prosecutor’s making ‘knowing use of false evidence,’ including by misrepresenting the nature of
nontestimonial evidence.” Id. at 570-71 (quoting Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1967)). The
Second Circuit further noted that reversal of a criminal conviction is a “drastic remedy that courts
are generally reluctant to implement,” and that the court would only do so “when a prosecutor’s
tactics cause substantial prejudice to the defendant and thereby serve to deprive him of his right to
a fair trial.” Id.
The instant case is easily distinguishable from Valentine, as it does not involve any of the
same facts, including any alleged mischaracterization of grand jury testimony at trial or any
prosecutor making “knowing use of false evidence.” Id. at 570-71; see also Mills v. Scully, 826
F.2d 1192, 1195 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Valentine for the proposition that “[e]ven where defense
counsel is aware of the falsity, there may be a deprivation of due process if the prosecutor
reinforces the deception by capitalizing on it in closing argument, or by posing misleading
questions to the witnesses” (citations omitted)). “Prosecutorial misconduct denies a defendant due
process only when it is ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to
a fair trial.’” Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434, 440 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Greer v. Miller, 483
U.S. 756, 765 (1987)).
same facts, including any alleged mischaracterization of grand jury testimony at trial or any
prosecutor making “knowing use of false evidence.” Id. at 570-71; see also Mills v. Scully, 826
F.2d 1192, 1195 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Valentine for the proposition that “[e]ven where defense
counsel is aware of the falsity, there may be a deprivation of due process if the prosecutor
reinforces the deception by capitalizing on it in closing argument, or by posing misleading
questions to the witnesses” (citations omitted)). “Prosecutorial misconduct denies a defendant due
process only when it is ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant’s right to
a fair trial.’” Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434, 440 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Greer v. Miller, 483
U.S. 756, 765 (1987)).
The defendant has otherwise failed to identify how she has been deprived of the right to a
fair trial. A jury will hear testimony about the defendant’s statements during her April and July
2016 depositions, along with other evidence, and determine if her statements were perjurious.
fair trial. A jury will hear testimony about the defendant’s statements during her April and July
2016 depositions, along with other evidence, and determine if her statements were perjurious.
108
DOJ-OGR-00003069
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document