DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
673 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government response)
File Size:
673 KB
Summary
This page is from a Government filing (Document 615) dated February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against the defendant's request to subpoena 'Juror 50's' social media records, citing the Stored Communications Act and privacy concerns. It also discusses a previous motion filed by Juror 50's counsel on January 10, 2022, seeking to intervene to protect the juror's rights against self-incrimination.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of post-trial inquiry regarding potential misconduct and social media use.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced as the party requesting subpoenas and invading juror privacy (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE corresponds to United...
|
| Counsel for Juror 50 | Legal Counsel |
Filed a motion to intervene on Jan 10, 2022, to protect the juror's rights.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Arguing against the defendant's subpoena requests.
|
|
| The Court |
Addressed in the filing (SDNY).
|
|
| Social Media Platforms |
Referenced in the context of the Stored Communications Act and subpoenas.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-01-10
Counsel for Juror 50 filed a motion to intervene and a supporting memorandum of law.
Court
Relationships (1)
Reference to 'counsel for Juror 50' filing a motion.
Key Quotes (3)
"A convicted defendant cannot be permitted to invade the privacy of a juror in this manner."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
Quote #1
"Even in criminal investigations, the Government cannot obtain such communications with a subpoena; the Government must obtain a search warrant upon a showing of probable cause."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
Quote #2
"protect [Juror 50’s] privacy rights and his right to avoid self-incrimination, and to further ensure that he will not be prejudiced by any investigation ordered by this Court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,952 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 49
his jury service. These requests similarly call for information barred by Rule 606(b). And the
overbreadth of this information is evidenced by the impracticality of production: Even in criminal
investigations, the Government cannot obtain such communications with a subpoena; the
Government must obtain a search warrant upon a showing of probable cause. See Stored
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703. In response to such warrants, social media platforms
provide the entirety of the electronic communications within the account for the relevant
timeframe—often a high volume of material—and the Government reviews the warrant returns to
determine what specific materials are responsive. Thus, if the subpoena the defendant requests
were issued, the defendant would likely obtain a high volume of Juror 50’s irrelevant personal
social media communications. A convicted defendant cannot be permitted to invade the privacy
of a juror in this manner. Finally, Request 2(c) seeks documentation of the dates on which Juror
50 opened and closed his social media accounts, but as discussed above, the defendant has failed
to establish that a hearing is warranted as to Juror 50’s statements about his use of social media,
so there is no basis to compel the production of such irrelevant information.
overbreadth of this information is evidenced by the impracticality of production: Even in criminal
investigations, the Government cannot obtain such communications with a subpoena; the
Government must obtain a search warrant upon a showing of probable cause. See Stored
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703. In response to such warrants, social media platforms
provide the entirety of the electronic communications within the account for the relevant
timeframe—often a high volume of material—and the Government reviews the warrant returns to
determine what specific materials are responsive. Thus, if the subpoena the defendant requests
were issued, the defendant would likely obtain a high volume of Juror 50’s irrelevant personal
social media communications. A convicted defendant cannot be permitted to invade the privacy
of a juror in this manner. Finally, Request 2(c) seeks documentation of the dates on which Juror
50 opened and closed his social media accounts, but as discussed above, the defendant has failed
to establish that a hearing is warranted as to Juror 50’s statements about his use of social media,
so there is no basis to compel the production of such irrelevant information.
III. The Court Should Provide Juror 50 with a Copy of His Questionnaire Before Any
Hearing
Hearing
On January 10, 2022, counsel for Juror 50 filed a motion to intervene and a supporting
memorandum of law in the case in order to “protect [Juror 50’s] privacy rights and his right to
avoid self-incrimination, and to further ensure that he will not be prejudiced by any investigation
ordered by this Court.” (Juror 50 Mem. at 4). Counsel for Juror 50 requested that he be permitted
to intervene, in part, to “assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry
memorandum of law in the case in order to “protect [Juror 50’s] privacy rights and his right to
avoid self-incrimination, and to further ensure that he will not be prejudiced by any investigation
ordered by this Court.” (Juror 50 Mem. at 4). Counsel for Juror 50 requested that he be permitted
to intervene, in part, to “assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry
42
DOJ-OGR-00009163
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document