DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
681 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing
File Size:
681 KB
Summary
This document is a court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated July 23, 2025 (likely a filing system date or typo, as the case number is 20 Cr. 330). Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denies Maxwell's motion (Dkt. 793) to access grand jury transcripts, which she requested in order to comment on the Government's pending motion to unseal said transcripts. The Judge cites legal precedent establishing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings and rules that Maxwell failed to demonstrate the 'compelling necessity' required to break that secrecy.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case; filed a motion seeking access to grand jury transcripts.
|
| Paul A. Engelmayer | District Judge |
Judge presiding over the case who issued the order denying Maxwell's motion.
|
| Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell | Legal Counsel |
Submitted the motion (Dkt. 793) on behalf of the defendant.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where the case is being heard.
|
|
| United States of America |
The government entity prosecuting the case.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
July 23, 2025
Judge Engelmayer issues an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for access to grand jury transcripts.
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (1)
Case caption and order issuance.
Key Quotes (5)
"The Court denies Maxwell’s motion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
Quote #1
"It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access to grand jury materials."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
Quote #2
"Th[e] indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
Quote #3
"Grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret, and a defendant seeking the disclosure of grand jury materials bears a heavy burden."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
Quote #4
"Post-trial motions by defendants seeking such access are almost invariably denied, for failure to make a showing of compelling necessity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015055.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,798 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 794 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-v-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
20 Cr. 330 (PAE)
ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
The Court has received a motion by counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeking access to grand jury transcripts in her case. Dkt. 793. The stated basis of that motion is to enable Maxwell to comment on the Government’s pending motion to unseal these transcripts, Dkt. 785, as to which the Court has ordered expedited briefing, Dkt. 789.
The Court denies Maxwell’s motion. It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access to grand jury materials. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e); see also, e.g., United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (“Th[e] indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Schlegel, 687 F. App’x 26, 30 (2d Cir. 2017) (“Grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret, and a defendant seeking the disclosure of grand jury materials bears a heavy burden.”). Post-trial motions by defendants seeking such access are almost invariably denied, for failure to make a showing of compelling necessity.¹
¹ See, e.g., United States v. Carneglia, 675 F. App’x 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of defendant’s post-conviction bid to access grand jury materials where he did not show that such was ““needed to avoid a possible injustice in’ any subsequent habeas proceedings” (quoting Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979))); United States v. Archuleta, No. 2 Cr. 1060, 2018 WL 8646703, at *6–7 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018) (denying request
DOJ-OGR-00015055
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document