DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
668 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion (government motion in limine)
File Size:
668 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Document 380) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It contains a Government argument (Section A) requesting the Court preclude the Defense from presenting evidence regarding government charging decisions. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and case law (Rosado, Borrero) to argue that such evidence is irrelevant, hearsay, and likely to confuse the jury.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge PAE | Judge |
Presiding judge indicated in case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Judge Paul A. Engelmayer)
|
| The Defense | Legal Team |
Party the prosecution seeks to prevent from eliciting certain evidence
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the guilt or innocence determination (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on case number)
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where case is filed (implied by S.D.N.Y. citation and header)
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00005416)
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as legal authority (2d Cir.)
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Venue)
|
Key Quotes (3)
"[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
Quote #1
"Evidence about charging decisions made by law enforcement officials is rarely admissible because such evidence typically consists of hearsay, is not relevant, and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
Quote #2
"the limited amount of probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,919 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 Filed 10/29/21 Page 23 of 54
A. The Court Should Not Permit the Defense to Elicit Evidence About Charging Decisions or Possible Reasons for Them
1. Applicable Law
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that "[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible."
Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence of the
charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court
may "exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Accordingly, any evidence
that is likely to distract the jury from the issue of guilt or innocence should be excluded under
Rule 403. See, e.g., United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984) (criticizing
admission of evidence about the propriety of a prosecution "for turning the trial away from a
determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate
issues in a criminal trial").
Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence of the
charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court
may "exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Accordingly, any evidence
that is likely to distract the jury from the issue of guilt or innocence should be excluded under
Rule 403. See, e.g., United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1984) (criticizing
admission of evidence about the propriety of a prosecution "for turning the trial away from a
determination of whether the elements of the offense charged had been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters far beyond the scope of legitimate
issues in a criminal trial").
Evidence about charging decisions made by law enforcement officials is rarely
admissible because such evidence typically consists of hearsay, is not relevant, and is likely to
confuse and mislead the jury. As such, courts in this Circuit have repeatedly precluded evidence
of charging decisions for one or more of these reasons. See, e.g., United States v. Borrero, No.
13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (precluding cross
examination regarding a government charging decision in part because "the limited amount of
probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of
admissible because such evidence typically consists of hearsay, is not relevant, and is likely to
confuse and mislead the jury. As such, courts in this Circuit have repeatedly precluded evidence
of charging decisions for one or more of these reasons. See, e.g., United States v. Borrero, No.
13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (precluding cross
examination regarding a government charging decision in part because "the limited amount of
probative value that the . . . charging decisions add is substantially outweighed by the risk of
22
DOJ-OGR-00005416
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document