DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
694 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion / court filing (memorandum of law)
File Size:
694 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, involving Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the government is evading a court order to identify specific co-conspirator statements by instead providing massive 'document dumps.' The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence and case law (Tracy, Daly, Tellier) regarding the admissibility of hearsay and the requirements for proving a conspiracy exists.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The filing discusses her request for disclosure of evidence.
|
| Magellan | Historical Figure (Metaphor) |
Used in a metaphor describing the government's skill in avoiding a court order ('circumnavigating this Court’s Order ...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The party accused of failing to identify co-conspirator statements.
|
|
| The Court |
Issued orders regarding disclosure that are being discussed.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited in case law (2d Cir.).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, identified in the footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
Context of the motion regarding discovery disputes.
Key Quotes (4)
"circumnavigating this Court’s Order with Magellan-like skill"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government Failed to Identify Any Purported Co-Conspirator Statements"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
Quote #2
"Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Do Not Satisfy the Court’s Order to Disclose"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
Quote #3
"these hearsay statements are presumptively unreliable"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,996 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 384 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 12
it intends to offer at trial ... in the Government’s production today or in its previous
productions.” And, circumnavigating this Court’s Order with Magellan-like skill, promised that,
as the government “continues to prepare for trial” it will produce any additional co-conspirator
statements “in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material.” See, Ex.
1.
productions.” And, circumnavigating this Court’s Order with Magellan-like skill, promised that,
as the government “continues to prepare for trial” it will produce any additional co-conspirator
statements “in connection with its ongoing obligation to produce Jencks Act material.” See, Ex.
1.
I. The Government Failed to Identify Any Purported Co-Conspirator
Statements
Statements
For a statement to fall within the definition of Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), “a court must
find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party
against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the
course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1196
(2d Cir. 1993). These conditions precedent are “[p]reliminary questions concerning ... the
admissibility of evidence” as referenced in Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), and must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 (2d Cir. 1988).
find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party
against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the
course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1196
(2d Cir. 1993). These conditions precedent are “[p]reliminary questions concerning ... the
admissibility of evidence” as referenced in Fed. R. Evid. 104(a), and must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 (2d Cir. 1988).
The Court may consider the coconspirator statements themselves in determining whether
the 801(d)(2)(E) prerequisites have been met. However, because “these hearsay statements are
presumptively unreliable,” United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578, 580 (2d Cir. 1996), there must
be independent corroborating evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and the participation
therein of the declarant and the defendant. Id.
the 801(d)(2)(E) prerequisites have been met. However, because “these hearsay statements are
presumptively unreliable,” United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578, 580 (2d Cir. 1996), there must
be independent corroborating evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and the participation
therein of the declarant and the defendant. Id.
II. Ongoing Document Dumps Containing Thousands of Statements Do Not
Satisfy the Court’s Order to Disclose
Satisfy the Court’s Order to Disclose
The government neither objected to Ms. Maxwell's request for disclosure nor the Court’s
Order requiring disclosure at the same time. See Dkt. 317 at 12, n.1 (citing Dkt. 291 and Dkt.
293). The government’s reason for not wanting to disclose the statements was considered and
Order requiring disclosure at the same time. See Dkt. 317 at 12, n.1 (citing Dkt. 291 and Dkt.
293). The government’s reason for not wanting to disclose the statements was considered and
2
DOJ-OGR-00005599
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document