DOJ-OGR-00003060.jpg
721 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum
File Size:
721 KB
Summary
This document is page 126 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal arguments regarding the 'state action' doctrine and the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing whether a private entity acts as a government agent. The document explicitly argues that the law firm Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and that the defendant's claim fails for lack of demonstrated state action.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE); the text argues her Fifth Amendment claim fails.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller |
Law firm mentioned in the discussion section; the document asserts it is not an agent of the Government.
|
|
| Government |
Refers to the U.S. Government/Prosecution in the context of state action and constitutional violations.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited as legal authority (2d Cir.).
|
|
| Supreme Court of the United States |
Cited as legal authority (U.S.).
|
|
| Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n |
Cited in a legal case reference.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Relationships (2)
Text states: 'Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government'
Context of the criminal case and Fifth Amendment claims.
Key Quotes (3)
"Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and has not been at any time during the course of the Government’s investigation"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003060.jpg
Quote #1
"Non-government action is attributable to the government 'only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003060.jpg
Quote #2
"the defendant’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because she has not demonstrated state action."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003060.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,141 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 239
behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that
evidence inadmissible.” Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166.
evidence inadmissible.” Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166.
This does not mean that only action undertaken directly by the Government may violate
the Fifth Amendment (or another right). In certain circumstances, a private entity may be deemed
to be acting as a government agent. See United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008)
(“Actions of a private entity are attributable to the State if there is a sufficiently close nexus
between the State and the challenged action of the entity so that the action of the latter may be
fairly treated as that of the State itself.” (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)).
the Fifth Amendment (or another right). In certain circumstances, a private entity may be deemed
to be acting as a government agent. See United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008)
(“Actions of a private entity are attributable to the State if there is a sufficiently close nexus
between the State and the challenged action of the entity so that the action of the latter may be
fairly treated as that of the State itself.” (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)).
However, this standard “is not satisfied when the state merely approves of or acquiesces in
the initiatives of the private entity, or when an entity is merely subject to governmental regulation.”
Id. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted; alterations incorporated)). Nor is it sufficient
that a non-government entity chooses to cooperate with a government investigation or has its own
parallel investigation. See id. at 150. Non-government action is attributable to the government
“only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the
[defendant] complains.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original).
“Such responsibility is normally found when the State ‘has exercised coercive power or has
provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be
deemed to be that of the State.’” Stein, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also
Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005).
the initiatives of the private entity, or when an entity is merely subject to governmental regulation.”
Id. (internal quotations marks and citations omitted; alterations incorporated)). Nor is it sufficient
that a non-government entity chooses to cooperate with a government investigation or has its own
parallel investigation. See id. at 150. Non-government action is attributable to the government
“only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the
[defendant] complains.” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original).
“Such responsibility is normally found when the State ‘has exercised coercive power or has
provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be
deemed to be that of the State.’” Stein, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also
Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005).
b. Discussion
As an initial matter, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because she has not
demonstrated state action. Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and has not been at
any time during the course of the Government’s investigation, including when it initiated the civil
demonstrated state action. Boies Schiller is not an agent of the Government and has not been at
any time during the course of the Government’s investigation, including when it initiated the civil
99
DOJ-OGR-00003060
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document