DOJ-OGR-00020822.jpg
618 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court order / judicial opinion (page 13 of a specific ruling, page 204 of appeal record)
File Size:
618 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court order in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (part of appeal record Case 22-1426). The Judge denies Maxwell's motion to compel the immediate disclosure of prior statements by 'Minor Victim-4' in which the victim allegedly did not mention Maxwell. The Court rules that the Government's deadline of October 11, 2021, for Jencks Act and Giglio material is sufficient and that the Government understands its Brady obligations regarding exculpatory evidence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal trial; requesting disclosure of exculpatory evidence.
|
| Minor Victim-4 | Witness/Victim |
Subject of a motion to compel; Maxwell sought prior statements where this victim did not mention her.
|
| Campo Flores | Case citation subject |
Referenced in legal precedent United States v. Campo Flores.
|
| Coppa | Case citation subject |
Referenced in legal precedent United States v. Coppa.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI |
Mentioned at the beginning of the text.
|
|
| The Government |
Responsible for disclosing Jencks Act, Giglio, and Brady material.
|
|
| The Court |
S.D.N.Y. court issuing the order.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in precedent).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-10-11
Deadline for Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material.
S.D.N.Y.
The Government
Maxwell
Unknown
Denial of motion to compel immediate disclosure of Minor Victim-4's prior statements.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Jurisdiction)
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell filing motions to compel against the Government.
Maxwell seeking statements where Minor Victim-4 did not mention her.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020822.jpg
Quote #1
"Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020822.jpg
Quote #2
"To the extent Maxwell argues that the Government is in possession of prior statements that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement)..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020822.jpg
Quote #3
"Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020822.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,120 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page204 of 208
A-200
A-200
FBI. The Court has ordered the Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material by
October 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. That date is seven weeks in advance of trial. The Court
sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated
witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure. See United States v.
Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016).
Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district and no showing
has been made that it will be insufficient for Maxwell to make effective use of the information in
preparation of her defense.
October 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. That date is seven weeks in advance of trial. The Court
sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated
witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure. See United States v.
Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016).
Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district and no showing
has been made that it will be insufficient for Maxwell to make effective use of the information in
preparation of her defense.
To the extent Maxwell argues that the Government is in possession of prior statements
that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement),
rather than useful only for standard impeachment purposes, it is of course the Government's
obligation to "disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes
known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the
preparation of its case." Dkt. 68 at 1. The context of questions and answers surely matters as to
whether a statement (or omission) is exculpatory, impeaching, or neither. It is for the
Government to make these assessments ex ante and fully meet its disclosure obligations so that
the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United
States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly
confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and will continue to
meet them. Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor
Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied.
that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement),
rather than useful only for standard impeachment purposes, it is of course the Government's
obligation to "disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes
known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the
preparation of its case." Dkt. 68 at 1. The context of questions and answers surely matters as to
whether a statement (or omission) is exculpatory, impeaching, or neither. It is for the
Government to make these assessments ex ante and fully meet its disclosure obligations so that
the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United
States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly
confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and will continue to
meet them. Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor
Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied.
__________________
of objection, the Court presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the
same time that it discloses Jencks Act material.
of objection, the Court presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the
same time that it discloses Jencks Act material.
13
DOJ-OGR-00020822
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document