DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg
582 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing
File Size:
582 KB
Summary
This is a legal letter dated December 16, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter presents legal arguments concerning the impeachment of witnesses using inconsistent statements and '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures), citing specific case law to support the defense's procedural approach.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | Attorney / Sender |
Attorney at Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C writing to the Judge.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge / Recipient |
United States District Court Judge presiding over the case.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Posner, J. | Judge (Cited) |
Judge cited in the case United States v. Marks.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C |
Firm representing the sender, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Southern District of New York.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
December 17, 2021
Document 553 Filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
United States District Court, SDNY
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
|
|
|
Address of the United States District Court, SDNY.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (2)
Pagliuca is filing legal arguments in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, representing the defense position.
Formal correspondence from attorney to presiding judge.
Key Quotes (3)
"No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required... to show the statement or disclose its contents to the witness"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg
Quote #1
"By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg
Quote #2
"Thus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has 'under any rational theory it might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,652 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 553 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 3
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364
FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364
FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
H A D D O N
M O R G A N
F O R E M A N
M O R G A N
F O R E M A N
December 16, 2021
VIA Email
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan,
I write in response to this Court’s order.
As to the first question, federal law is clear. “No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness
whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common
law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed .R. Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose
its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel.” United
States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.).
whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common
law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed .R. Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose
its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel.” United
States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.).
As to the second question a statement provable by extrinsic evidence even though the
witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses
disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically
and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement).
Thus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has “under any rational theory it
might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from
anything the witness said.” United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002)
witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses
disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically
and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement).
Thus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has “under any rational theory it
might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from
anything the witness said.” United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002)
DOJ-OGR-00008425
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document