DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
693 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
693 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) argues that an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various legal precedents (Nelson, Midland Asphalt, Punn) to support the argument that her rights to a fair trial can be vindicated after a final judgment or during the criminal trial itself. It addresses Maxwell's concern that unsealing documents in civil cases might prejudice her criminal trial, asserting she can raise those issues in the criminal case if they arise.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments; seeking to amend a Protective Order regarding discovery materials.
|
| Nelson | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in United States v. Nelson regarding impartial juries.
|
| MacDonald | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in United States v. MacDonald regarding trial rights.
|
| Punn | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in United States v. Punn regarding appealability.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited as 2d Cir. in case law.
|
|
| Supreme Court of the United States |
Cited as U.S. in case law.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019382.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-16
Filing of Document 38 in Case 20-3061.
Court of Appeals
Unknown
Relationships (1)
Discussion of Government opposing motions and criminal trial proceedings.
Key Quotes (3)
"Simply put, the Order denying Maxwell’s motion to amend the Protective Order is not reviewable on interlocutory appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell complains that if she cannot use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation then there is a risk that certain filings in the civil cases may be unsealed that otherwise would have remained sealed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell apparently believes such a result would risk prejudicing her trial rights in the criminal case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,685 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page16 of 23
right to an impartial jury. See, e.g., United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201-04,
213 (2d Cir. 2002) (vacating conviction where district court improperly refused to
excuse potential juror who admitted bias based upon knowledge of defendant’s
previous acquittal). Thus, the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury would
not “be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial,” Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S.
at 799 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 435
U.S. 850, 860 (1978)), and, as such, the Order does not meet the third criterion for
appealability of a collateral order. See Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (defendant’s interests
“can be adequately vindicated upon appeal from a final judgment” through “a new
trial . . . or whatever additional remedies are necessary”).
213 (2d Cir. 2002) (vacating conviction where district court improperly refused to
excuse potential juror who admitted bias based upon knowledge of defendant’s
previous acquittal). Thus, the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury would
not “be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial,” Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S.
at 799 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 435
U.S. 850, 860 (1978)), and, as such, the Order does not meet the third criterion for
appealability of a collateral order. See Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (defendant’s interests
“can be adequately vindicated upon appeal from a final judgment” through “a new
trial . . . or whatever additional remedies are necessary”).
21. Simply put, the Order denying Maxwell’s motion to amend the
Protective Order is not reviewable on interlocutory appeal. Maxwell complains
that if she cannot use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation then there is a
risk that certain filings in the civil cases may be unsealed that otherwise would
have remained sealed. Maxwell apparently believes such a result would risk
prejudicing her trial rights in the criminal case. If such materials are unsealed in
the civil case, and if Maxwell believes that unsealing causes her prejudice at her
criminal trial, Maxwell will have a full opportunity to raise that issue in the
criminal case. To the extent Maxwell is concerned that unsealing in the civil case
might permit the Government to oppose any motion challenging the unsealing
Protective Order is not reviewable on interlocutory appeal. Maxwell complains
that if she cannot use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation then there is a
risk that certain filings in the civil cases may be unsealed that otherwise would
have remained sealed. Maxwell apparently believes such a result would risk
prejudicing her trial rights in the criminal case. If such materials are unsealed in
the civil case, and if Maxwell believes that unsealing causes her prejudice at her
criminal trial, Maxwell will have a full opportunity to raise that issue in the
criminal case. To the extent Maxwell is concerned that unsealing in the civil case
might permit the Government to oppose any motion challenging the unsealing
16
DOJ-OGR-00019382
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document