DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government response to motion to suppress)
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This document is page 70 of a legal filing (Document 397) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues against a motion to suppress evidence, specifically regarding a 'confirmatory identification' made by 'Minor Victim-4.' The prosecution argues the identification is admissible because the victim knew the defendant by name from previous interactions, citing various legal precedents regarding independent reliability of witness identification.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Victim-4 | Witness/Victim |
Provided a confirmatory identification of the defendant; stated she knew the defendant by name from previous interact...
|
| Defendant | Accused |
Subject of the identification procedure; implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in legal precedence (Wiggins v. Greiner, United States v. Lumpkin).
|
|
| District Court for the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.) |
Cited in legal precedence (United States v. Crumble).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-10-29
Filing of Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Court
Relationships (1)
Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions.
Key Quotes (3)
"Minor Victim-4’s identification had clear independent reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg
Quote #1
"The motion to suppress should be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg
Quote #2
"where there has been no showing of suggestiveness, “any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,052 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 70 of 84
there are several similar quality photos in the book. (See Ex. A, photos [REDACTED]). In any event,
these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory
identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should
be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will
have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination
and attorney argument. See Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing
of suggestiveness, “any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of
the evidence, not its admissibility”).
these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory
identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should
be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will
have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination
and attorney argument. See Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing
of suggestiveness, “any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of
the evidence, not its admissibility”).
Even if the “confirmatory identification” procedure was impermissibly suggestive as the
defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4’s identification had clear independent
reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous
interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed
question about a confirmatory identification’s suggestiveness because the independent basis for
the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App’x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005)
(witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under “streetlight illumination” but was familiar with
defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192
F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers’ in-court identifications reliable where officers had
unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during
daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2018) (collecting cases finding that “in-court identification is [] admissible,
despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant
defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4’s identification had clear independent
reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous
interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed
question about a confirmatory identification’s suggestiveness because the independent basis for
the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App’x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005)
(witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under “streetlight illumination” but was familiar with
defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192
F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers’ in-court identifications reliable where officers had
unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during
daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2018) (collecting cases finding that “in-court identification is [] admissible,
despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant
69
DOJ-OGR-00005853
DOJ-OGR-00005853
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document