DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
742 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae, document 307)
File Size:
742 KB
Summary
This is page 13 of a court filing (Doc 307) from the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 25, 2021. The text denies Maxwell's request to suppress evidence, stating she failed to prove a due process violation or justify the use of the Court's supervisory authority. The Court argues that the Government's omission of information regarding past communications with BSF (Boies Schiller Flexner) does not constitute the 'extreme misconduct' or 'willful disobedience of law' required for suppression.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the court's ruling regarding suppression of evidence and due process violations.
|
| Judge McMahon | Judge |
Recipient of statements made by the prosecutor.
|
| The Prosecutor | Government Representative |
Made statements to Judge McMahon; conduct being analyzed for 'willful misconduct'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The entity opposing Maxwell; alleged by defense to have made missteps.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited for legal precedents regarding the exclusionary rule.
|
|
| BSF |
Mentioned regarding 'communications with BSF years earlier' which were omitted.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law (United States v. Schmidt).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-06-25
Filing of Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
US District Court (SDNY implied by case number)
Court
Maxwell
Government
Relationships (2)
Maxwell arguing for suppression of evidence based on Government misconduct.
Reference to 'statements to Judge McMahon'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Maxwell has not established a violation of due process or justified the exercise of the Court’s inherent supervisory authority."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
Quote #1
"Not every misstep by the Government during a criminal investigation justifies suppressing relevant evidence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
Quote #2
"Omitting information about communications with BSF years earlier falls well short of the sort of extreme misconduct supporting suppression as a matter of due process."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
Quote #3
"Maxwell all but concedes that the present record does not show willful misconduct"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,192 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 13 of 21
or another substantive constitutional provision supplies a standard for the suppression of
evidence, courts must follow that standard, not invent their own. See Payner, 447 U.S. at 735.
evidence, courts must follow that standard, not invent their own. See Payner, 447 U.S. at 735.
Maxwell has not established a violation of due process or justified the exercise of the
Court’s inherent supervisory authority. Not every misstep by the Government during a criminal
investigation justifies suppressing relevant evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
explained that the exclusionary rule weighs the interest in deterring investigatory misconduct
against the truth-seeking function of the judicial process. That balance “do[es] not change
because a court has elected to analyze the question under the supervisory power instead of” some
other constitutional provision. Id. at 736. Due process provides an independent basis to suppress
evidence only when the Government engages in conduct that is “fundamentally unfair or
shocking to our traditional sense of justice” or is “so outrageous that common notions of fairness
and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against
the accused.” United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Ordinarily such official misconduct must involve either coercion or violation of the
defendant’s person.” Id. (citations omitted). This case involves neither. Omitting information
about communications with BSF years earlier falls well short of the sort of extreme misconduct
supporting suppression as a matter of due process.
Court’s inherent supervisory authority. Not every misstep by the Government during a criminal
investigation justifies suppressing relevant evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
explained that the exclusionary rule weighs the interest in deterring investigatory misconduct
against the truth-seeking function of the judicial process. That balance “do[es] not change
because a court has elected to analyze the question under the supervisory power instead of” some
other constitutional provision. Id. at 736. Due process provides an independent basis to suppress
evidence only when the Government engages in conduct that is “fundamentally unfair or
shocking to our traditional sense of justice” or is “so outrageous that common notions of fairness
and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against
the accused.” United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Ordinarily such official misconduct must involve either coercion or violation of the
defendant’s person.” Id. (citations omitted). This case involves neither. Omitting information
about communications with BSF years earlier falls well short of the sort of extreme misconduct
supporting suppression as a matter of due process.
To the extent Maxwell asks the Court to engage in a freewheeling exercise of its inherent
supervisory power instead, the Court declines to do so. To begin with, suppression under a
court’s supervisory authority is only appropriate, if at all, when the Government has engaged in
“willful disobedience of law.” Payner, 447 U.S. at 735 n.7 (emphasis added). Maxwell all but
concedes that the present record does not show willful misconduct, contending instead that it
“doesn’t matter” whether the prosecutor knew his statements to Judge McMahon were
supervisory power instead, the Court declines to do so. To begin with, suppression under a
court’s supervisory authority is only appropriate, if at all, when the Government has engaged in
“willful disobedience of law.” Payner, 447 U.S. at 735 n.7 (emphasis added). Maxwell all but
concedes that the present record does not show willful misconduct, contending instead that it
“doesn’t matter” whether the prosecutor knew his statements to Judge McMahon were
13
DOJ-OGR-00004797
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document