DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
759 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government memorandum/motion)
File Size:
759 KB
Summary
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PAE | Judge |
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (presiding judge in Case 1:20-cr-00330 and cited cases Andrews/Rivera)
|
| JMF | Judge |
Judge Jesse M. Furman (cited in United States v. Dupigny)
|
| Charles Alan Wright | Legal Author |
Co-author of Federal Practice & Procedure treatise cited as authority
|
| Arthur R. Miller | Legal Author |
Co-author of Federal Practice & Procedure treatise cited as authority
|
| Andrews | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Andrews
|
| Rivera | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Rivera
|
| Dupigny | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Dupigny
|
| Backman | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Backman
|
| Valenzuela | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in United States v. Valenzuela
|
Organizations (4)
Relationships (1)
Government
→
Legal Party/Adjudicator
→
Court
Government respectfully submits... Court can set an earlier briefing schedule
Key Quotes (3)
"This language plainly gives the Court authority to set a “different” time, not necessarily a “later” time, to require the defense to file a Rule 412 motion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
Quote #1
"Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the express terms of Rule 412 contemplate that the Court can set an earlier briefing schedule."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
Quote #2
"Before admitting evidence under Rule 412, the Court “must conduct an in camera hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,293 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 351 Filed 10/15/21 Page 2 of 4
Page 2
Page 2
and must “do so at least 14 days before trial unless the court, for good cause, sets a different time.”
Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This language plainly gives the Court authority to
set a “different” time, not necessarily a “later” time, to require the defense to file a Rule 412
motion. See, e.g., Order, United States v. Andrews, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2020)
(Dkt. No. 287) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of February 13, 2020, for a March 9, 2020 trial); Order,
United States v. Rivera, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 384) (setting a
Rule 412 deadline of October 15, 2020, for a November 9, 2020 trial); United States v. Dupigny,
18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2019) (Dkt. No. 202) (requiring a “finalized proffer of
evidence” the defense sought to admit under Rule 412 by December 6, 2019, in advance of a
January 13, 2020 trial); United States v. Backman, 817 F.3d 662, 669-70 (9th Cir. 2016)
(concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion when setting Rule 412 deadline more
than 14 days before trial and denying request to amend the motion less than 14 days before trial);
United States v. Valenzuela, No. Cr. 07-11, 2008 WL 2824958, at *4 n.12 (C.D. Cal. July 21,
2008) (“Good cause exists to advance the deadline for filing a Rule 412(c) motion by eleven days
given the complex nature of the action and the volume of evidence that will likely be presented at
trial.”); see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5377 (2d
ed. 2020) (explaining that the text of Rule 412(c)(1)(B) “suggests that the court might require that
the motion be filed earlier than 14 days before trial or might permit the motion to be brought later,
including during trial.”). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the express terms
of Rule 412 contemplate that the Court can set an earlier briefing schedule.
Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This language plainly gives the Court authority to
set a “different” time, not necessarily a “later” time, to require the defense to file a Rule 412
motion. See, e.g., Order, United States v. Andrews, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2020)
(Dkt. No. 287) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of February 13, 2020, for a March 9, 2020 trial); Order,
United States v. Rivera, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 384) (setting a
Rule 412 deadline of October 15, 2020, for a November 9, 2020 trial); United States v. Dupigny,
18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2019) (Dkt. No. 202) (requiring a “finalized proffer of
evidence” the defense sought to admit under Rule 412 by December 6, 2019, in advance of a
January 13, 2020 trial); United States v. Backman, 817 F.3d 662, 669-70 (9th Cir. 2016)
(concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion when setting Rule 412 deadline more
than 14 days before trial and denying request to amend the motion less than 14 days before trial);
United States v. Valenzuela, No. Cr. 07-11, 2008 WL 2824958, at *4 n.12 (C.D. Cal. July 21,
2008) (“Good cause exists to advance the deadline for filing a Rule 412(c) motion by eleven days
given the complex nature of the action and the volume of evidence that will likely be presented at
trial.”); see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5377 (2d
ed. 2020) (explaining that the text of Rule 412(c)(1)(B) “suggests that the court might require that
the motion be filed earlier than 14 days before trial or might permit the motion to be brought later,
including during trial.”). Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the express terms
of Rule 412 contemplate that the Court can set an earlier briefing schedule.
A deadline more than two weeks in advance of trial is consistent with the Rule’s procedural
requirements. Before admitting evidence under Rule 412, the Court “must conduct an in camera
hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard.” Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2).
requirements. Before admitting evidence under Rule 412, the Court “must conduct an in camera
hearing and give the victim and parties a right to attend and be heard.” Fed. R. Evid. 412(c)(2).
DOJ-OGR-00005238
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document