DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
637 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief
File Size:
637 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (filed Sept 24, 2020) argues against the government's stance that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The text discusses the 'collateral order doctrine' in criminal cases, citing precedents like Midland Asphalt Corp. and Flanagan, and asserts that Maxwell simply seeks permission to share facts under seal with another judge. A footnote references the Miami Herald's involvement in the related civil case Brown v. Maxwell.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Seeking permission to share facts under seal; subject of the legal arguments regarding the collateral order doctrine.
|
| Brown | Plaintiff (Civil Case) |
Named in the cited case Brown v. Maxwell.
|
| Article III Judge | Judicial Official |
Unnamed judge with whom Maxwell seeks to share facts.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposing party arguing against jurisdiction.
|
|
| The Miami Herald |
Media organization that filed a notice of appeal in the related civil case.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (mentioned in footnote citations).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019416).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2018-09-26
Relationships (1)
Cited case Brown v. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"All Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with another Article III judge."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
Quote #1
"The government argues there is no jurisdiction for this Court to consider this appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
Quote #2
"The government is wrong."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019416.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,439 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page17 of 58
civil case was on appeal and pending before this Court.³ Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-
2868. All Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts
with another Article III judge.
2868. All Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts
with another Article III judge.
The government argues there is no jurisdiction for this Court to consider this
appeal. Doc. 37. Quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, the government
says the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted “with the utmost strictness in
criminal cases.” 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465
U.S. 259, 265 (1984)). Doc. 37 at 8. According to the government, in criminal cases
the doctrine applies only to orders denying a bond, orders denying a motion to
dismiss on double jeopardy ground, orders denying a motion to dismiss under the
Speech and Debate Clause, and orders permitting the forced administration of
antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for trial. Doc. 37 at 9. The
government is wrong.
appeal. Doc. 37. Quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, the government
says the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted “with the utmost strictness in
criminal cases.” 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465
U.S. 259, 265 (1984)). Doc. 37 at 8. According to the government, in criminal cases
the doctrine applies only to orders denying a bond, orders denying a motion to
dismiss on double jeopardy ground, orders denying a motion to dismiss under the
Speech and Debate Clause, and orders permitting the forced administration of
antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for trial. Doc. 37 at 9. The
government is wrong.
To be sure, this appeal does not concern one of the four types of orders
identified by the government. But that doesn’t mean the appeal isn’t proper under
identified by the government. But that doesn’t mean the appeal isn’t proper under
_________________
³ The Miami Herald filed its notice of appeal in Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-
2868 (2d Cir.), on September 26, 2018, and this Court issued its decision on July 3,
2019, Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.2019).
[REDACTED BLOCK]
.
³ The Miami Herald filed its notice of appeal in Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-
2868 (2d Cir.), on September 26, 2018, and this Court issued its decision on July 3,
2019, Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.2019).
[REDACTED BLOCK]
.
12
DOJ-OGR-00019416
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document