DOJ-OGR-00002713.jpg
696 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court document)
File Size:
696 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 148) from February 4, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines a legal argument based on the 'Turkish factors' to justify the defense's request for early disclosure of the government's witness list. The defense argues that Maxwell has no criminal history, is not a danger to the community, and that the complexity of the case combined with the global pandemic necessitates this disclosure for fair preparation.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal argument; described as having no criminal history and not being a danger to the community.
|
| Cannone | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation 'United States v. Cannone'.
|
| Turkish | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation 'United States v. Turkish' regarding the six-factor test.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, referenced in citation.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by 'government' and footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (legal jurisdiction mentioned in citation).
|
Relationships (1)
Legal filing arguing for disclosure of government's witness list to the defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"Ms. Maxwell has no criminal history, and the government has conceded that she is not a danger to the community."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002713.jpg
Quote #1
"The age of the charged offenses and the complications imposed by a global pandemic makes investigation and preparation of this case complex and difficult."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002713.jpg
Quote #2
"Disclosure of the government’s witness list is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002713.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,056 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 23
Court may order the disclosure when a balancing of the defendant’s need for disclosure and the
government’s need for concealment indicates that such an order would be in the interests of
justice. See Cannone, 528 F.2d at 300-02. Trial courts generally exercise discretion to order
such disclosure upon a finding that a defendant’s request is material to the preparation of the case
and is otherwise reasonable. See id. at 300-01. Courts assess the materiality and reasonableness
of the request through the application of a six-factor test set forth in United States v. Turkish, 458
F. Supp. 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1978):
government’s need for concealment indicates that such an order would be in the interests of
justice. See Cannone, 528 F.2d at 300-02. Trial courts generally exercise discretion to order
such disclosure upon a finding that a defendant’s request is material to the preparation of the case
and is otherwise reasonable. See id. at 300-01. Courts assess the materiality and reasonableness
of the request through the application of a six-factor test set forth in United States v. Turkish, 458
F. Supp. 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1978):
1. Did the offense alleged in the indictment involve a crime of violence?
2. Have the defendants been arrested or convicted for crimes involving violence?
3. Will the evidence in the case largely consist of testimony relating to documents
(which by their nature are not easily altered)?
4. Is there a realistic possibility that supplying the witnesses' names prior to trial will
increase the likelihood that the prosecution's witnesses will not appear at trial, or
will be unwilling to testify at trial?
5. Does the indictment allege offenses occurring over an extended period of time,
making preparation of the defendants’ defense complex and difficult?
6. Do the defendants have limited funds with which to investigate and prepare their
defense?
2. Have the defendants been arrested or convicted for crimes involving violence?
3. Will the evidence in the case largely consist of testimony relating to documents
(which by their nature are not easily altered)?
4. Is there a realistic possibility that supplying the witnesses' names prior to trial will
increase the likelihood that the prosecution's witnesses will not appear at trial, or
will be unwilling to testify at trial?
5. Does the indictment allege offenses occurring over an extended period of time,
making preparation of the defendants’ defense complex and difficult?
6. Do the defendants have limited funds with which to investigate and prepare their
defense?
Id. at 881.
Here, the application of the Turkish factors favors early disclosure of the identities of the
government’s witnesses. The indictment does not allege crimes of violence, Ms. Maxwell has no
criminal history, and the government has conceded that she is not a danger to the community.
The age of the charged offenses and the complications imposed by a global pandemic makes
investigation and preparation of this case complex and difficult. Disclosure of the government’s
witness list is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the
circumstances surrounding this case.
government’s witnesses. The indictment does not allege crimes of violence, Ms. Maxwell has no
criminal history, and the government has conceded that she is not a danger to the community.
The age of the charged offenses and the complications imposed by a global pandemic makes
investigation and preparation of this case complex and difficult. Disclosure of the government’s
witness list is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the
circumstances surrounding this case.
16
DOJ-OGR-00002713
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document