DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
670 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal ruling
File Size:
670 KB
Summary
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's request (Request 11) for a subpoena to obtain original photographs of an alleged victim, ruling that the Government has already agreed to provide the photos in FBI possession, and that Maxwell failed to establish the relevance of the remaining photos beyond impeachment purposes, which does not satisfy Rule 17(c) requirements. The document concludes by formally denying the Defendant's motion.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Seeking original photographs to investigate authenticity; motion denied.
|
| Alleged Victim | Subject of Evidence |
Subject of the photographs in question; potential witness whose testimony scope is currently unknown.
|
| Nixon | Legal Precedent |
Referenced regarding the 'relevance requirement' for subpoenas (US v. Nixon).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Issued the ruling denying the motion.
|
|
| The Government |
Indicated possession of some photos via FBI; opposed the motion for others.
|
|
| FBI |
Possesses original versions of a subset of the requested photographs.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-06-04
Court denies Defendant's motion for a subpoena regarding original photographs.
Court (Document Filing)
Relationships (2)
The Government indicated that... photographs are in the FBI’s possession.
Maxwell seeking photos of alleged victim for impeachment/authenticity checks.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Defendant’s motion for an order authorizing the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) is DENIED."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell seeks these materials to inspect them prior to trial in order to investigate their authenticity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
Quote #2
"The only discernible theory of relevance as to this request is impeachment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
Quote #3
"impeachment evidence falls outside the scope of Rule 17(c), the request fails to meet Nixon’s relevance requirement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,942 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 5 of 6
timeframe, the Defendant may make an application to the Court to compel the Government to
adhere to its representation.
adhere to its representation.
Request 11 seeks production of the original versions of certain photographs of the alleged
victim. Maxwell seeks these materials to inspect them prior to trial in order to investigate their
authenticity. In its May 6 letter, the Government indicated that the original versions of a subset
of the photographs are in the FBI’s possession, and the Government will make those photographs
available to the defense for inspection upon request. The Court agrees with the Government that
the request is moot as to those photographs. Again, to the extent that the Government fails to
comply with its representation that it will make those photographs available to the defense upon
request, the defense may make an application to the Court.
victim. Maxwell seeks these materials to inspect them prior to trial in order to investigate their
authenticity. In its May 6 letter, the Government indicated that the original versions of a subset
of the photographs are in the FBI’s possession, and the Government will make those photographs
available to the defense for inspection upon request. The Court agrees with the Government that
the request is moot as to those photographs. Again, to the extent that the Government fails to
comply with its representation that it will make those photographs available to the defense upon
request, the defense may make an application to the Court.
As to the remaining photographs, the request is denied on the basis that the defense has
failed to establish the relevance of the original versions of the photographs. The defense already
has photocopies or scanned versions of the photographs in question. But the defense proffers
that it seeks the original versions of these photographs in order to determine whether they are
genuine. The only discernible theory of relevance as to this request is impeachment. Maxwell
does not set forth any other nonconclusory basis for their relevance. And again, because
impeachment evidence falls outside the scope of Rule 17(c), the request fails to meet Nixon’s
relevance requirement. But even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish
relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim’s
testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs.
failed to establish the relevance of the original versions of the photographs. The defense already
has photocopies or scanned versions of the photographs in question. But the defense proffers
that it seeks the original versions of these photographs in order to determine whether they are
genuine. The only discernible theory of relevance as to this request is impeachment. Maxwell
does not set forth any other nonconclusory basis for their relevance. And again, because
impeachment evidence falls outside the scope of Rule 17(c), the request fails to meet Nixon’s
relevance requirement. But even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish
relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim’s
testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs.
I. Conclusion
The Defendant’s motion for an order authorizing the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3)
is DENIED.
is DENIED.
5
DOJ-OGR-00004741
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document