DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
467 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
467 KB
Summary
This document is page 15 (marked A-5917) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues that there was no proof the defendant knew specific transactions were wrong and claims a 'government partisan' juror was biased against the defendant, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in *Strickland* regarding harmless error. The Judge then invites prosecutor Ms. Davis to respond.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Shechtman | Defense Attorney |
Speaker arguing regarding tolling agreements, harmless error, and juror bias.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, thanks Mr. Shechtman and addresses Ms. Davis.
|
| Ms. Davis | Prosecutor/Government |
Addressed by the Court to see if the government wants to be heard.
|
| Justice Marshall | Supreme Court Justice (Historical) |
Cited by Shechtman regarding a dissent in the 'Strickland' case.
|
| Unnamed Male ('He') | Subject of discussion |
Shechtman refers to a 'he' whom a juror was 'out to get' and who allegedly didn't know transactions were wrong. (Note...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District |
Refers to the jurisdiction (likely SDNY) and its practices regarding agreements.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Reporting agency listed in footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
02/24/22
Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell).
Southern District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Judicial district mentioned in context of legal practices.
|
Relationships (1)
Shechtman concludes argument; Court asks Davis (Government) for response.
Key Quotes (3)
"The nature of the error here is that a government partisan out to get him in particular was on the jury."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
Quote #1
"There is no proof he thought he knew these transactions were wrong."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
Quote #2
"That's a pretty serious error. The proof, far from overwhelming."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,592 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616-3 Filed 02/24/22 Page 74 of 117
A-5917
A-5917
15
CAC3PARC
1 I'm sitting here with a tolling agreement from the
2 Southern District in a case of mine which says as of
3 January 14. Which is faxed on January 16. But everybody
4 wanted it to be effective two days before because that was the
5 agreement, as happens in the Southern District. It happens
6 everywhere. And it doesn't mean backdating. In this case it
7 means this is the price.
8 But all that is a long way of saying there is no proof
9 that he knew this rule. There is no proof it was discussed
10 with him. There is no proof he thought he knew these
11 transactions were wrong. And at the end of the day, when one's
12 argument is he must've known, that's a weak reed, particularly
13 when this prejudice notion is harmless error like. After all,
14 you have Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland that says it
15 should have been harmless error, it should have been under the
16 government's burden. When you do harmless error analysis, you
17 say two things: What is the nature of the error, and what's
18 the proof. The nature of the error here is that a government
19 partisan out to get him in particular was on the jury. That's
20 a pretty serious error. The proof, far from overwhelming.
21 As I say, I think if I can get you to the prejudice
22 prong, we ought to see you in April and not in January and I
23 hope that's the case.
24 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Shechtman.
25 Ms. Davis, does the government want to be heard?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009493
CAC3PARC
1 I'm sitting here with a tolling agreement from the
2 Southern District in a case of mine which says as of
3 January 14. Which is faxed on January 16. But everybody
4 wanted it to be effective two days before because that was the
5 agreement, as happens in the Southern District. It happens
6 everywhere. And it doesn't mean backdating. In this case it
7 means this is the price.
8 But all that is a long way of saying there is no proof
9 that he knew this rule. There is no proof it was discussed
10 with him. There is no proof he thought he knew these
11 transactions were wrong. And at the end of the day, when one's
12 argument is he must've known, that's a weak reed, particularly
13 when this prejudice notion is harmless error like. After all,
14 you have Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland that says it
15 should have been harmless error, it should have been under the
16 government's burden. When you do harmless error analysis, you
17 say two things: What is the nature of the error, and what's
18 the proof. The nature of the error here is that a government
19 partisan out to get him in particular was on the jury. That's
20 a pretty serious error. The proof, far from overwhelming.
21 As I say, I think if I can get you to the prejudice
22 prong, we ought to see you in April and not in January and I
23 hope that's the case.
24 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Shechtman.
25 Ms. Davis, does the government want to be heard?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00009493
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document