DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
696 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / order (page 3 of 7)
File Size:
696 KB
Summary
This is page 3 of a court order filed on Feb 11, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court rules against the Defendant's request to completely seal motion papers related to an inquiry into 'Juror 50,' stating that wholesale sealing is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest of justice. The Judge notes that much of the information is already public and that the Court, as the fact-finder for the inquiry, is already privy to the information regardless of sealing.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror / Witness |
Subject of a potential inquiry/hearing; testimony needs to be protected from outside influence.
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Party requesting sealing of documents due to publicity concerns. (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on Case 1:20-cr-00330).
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Opposing the Defendant's motion for wholesale sealing.
|
| The Court | Judge / Fact-finder |
Ruling on the motion to seal documents; deciding on the integrity of the inquiry.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction cited in legal precedent
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Wholesale sealing of the motion papers, even on a temporary basis, is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest in ensuring the integrity of any potential inquiry."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant’s concern that media interest in the motion warrants temporary sealing of the documents in their entirety."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
Quote #2
"Defendant argues that 'there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity' because coverage 'will influence the memories of other potential witnesses,' as well as Juror 50."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
Quote #3
"First, much of the information relied upon in the Defendant’s motion and the Government’s response is publicly available."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,079 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 7
place” and, more specifically, to “ensure that the most critical evidence to be elicited at the
hearing—namely, the testimony of Juror 50—is not tainted by outside information and
influence.” Dkt. No. 590 at 2. The Court agrees that the integrity of any inquiry is a “higher
value” that must be weighed in determining public access to the documents. As the Court has
previously articulated, it must “ensure the integrity of any potential inquiry process going
forward, should one be ordered,” as “[t]hat too is in the public, as well as the Defendant’s and
the Government’s, interest.” Dkt. No. 585.
hearing—namely, the testimony of Juror 50—is not tainted by outside information and
influence.” Dkt. No. 590 at 2. The Court agrees that the integrity of any inquiry is a “higher
value” that must be weighed in determining public access to the documents. As the Court has
previously articulated, it must “ensure the integrity of any potential inquiry process going
forward, should one be ordered,” as “[t]hat too is in the public, as well as the Defendant’s and
the Government’s, interest.” Dkt. No. 585.
But restricting public access to judicial documents, whether through sealing or redaction,
must be “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Wholesale sealing
of the motion papers, even on a temporary basis, is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest in
ensuring the integrity of any potential inquiry. The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant’s
concern that media interest in the motion warrants temporary sealing of the documents in their
entirety. Defendant argues that “there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a
fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity” because coverage “will influence the memories of other
potential witnesses,” as well as Juror 50. Dkt. No. 590 at 3-5 (relying on United States v. Silver,
No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016)). As the Government
properly notes, however, the concern in the pretrial posture, as in Silver, is that potential jurors
may learn prejudicial information they would otherwise not. Here, however, the concern is
entirely absent for at least two reasons. First, much of the information relied upon in the
Defendant’s motion and the Government’s response is publicly available. And second, the Court
is the relevant fact-finder with respect to any potential hearing and it is obviously privy to the
information whether filed under seal or filed publicly.
must be “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Wholesale sealing
of the motion papers, even on a temporary basis, is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest in
ensuring the integrity of any potential inquiry. The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant’s
concern that media interest in the motion warrants temporary sealing of the documents in their
entirety. Defendant argues that “there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a
fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity” because coverage “will influence the memories of other
potential witnesses,” as well as Juror 50. Dkt. No. 590 at 3-5 (relying on United States v. Silver,
No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016)). As the Government
properly notes, however, the concern in the pretrial posture, as in Silver, is that potential jurors
may learn prejudicial information they would otherwise not. Here, however, the concern is
entirely absent for at least two reasons. First, much of the information relied upon in the
Defendant’s motion and the Government’s response is publicly available. And second, the Court
is the relevant fact-finder with respect to any potential hearing and it is obviously privy to the
information whether filed under seal or filed publicly.
3
DOJ-OGR-00008911
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document