DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion (defense motion regarding evidence admissibility)
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This document is Page 7 of a defense filing (Document 391) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that evidence collected by the Palm Beach Police Department—specifically message pads, electronic storage devices (CPUs, CDs, Flash Cards), and photos—should be inadmissible due to lack of authenticity, poor chain of custody ('unreliable mess'), and lack of proper inventory. The text cites legal precedents regarding the requirements for authenticating physical evidence.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Palm Beach Police Department |
Agency responsible for seizing message pads and electronic devices.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution team intending to offer seized messages as evidence.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (cited in case law).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Prior to 2021 filing)
Seizure of evidence including message pads, CPUs, Zip CDs, CDs, Flash Cards, and Photos.
Different locations (implied Palm Beach)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the Police Department involved in the seizure of evidence.
|
Relationships (1)
Government intends to use evidence seized by the Palm Beach Police Department.
Key Quotes (5)
"Simply stated, the evidence collection and retention in this matter is an unreliable mess."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government contends that various message pads were seized from different locations by the Palm Beach Police Department"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
Quote #2
"Many of the alleged messages are undated, un-signed, contain various hearsay statements"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
Quote #3
"no actual inventory of the alleged contents of these drives appears to have been prepared by anyone in the Palm Beach Police Department."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
Quote #4
"The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity and Personal Knowledge"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,734 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 391 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 11
the package did not match the item. Simply stated, the evidence collection and retention in this
matter is an unreliable mess.
matter is an unreliable mess.
A. Message Pads
The Government contends that various message pads were seized from different locations
by the Palm Beach Police Department and appears to intend to offer hundreds of the messages as
evidence at trial. See, e.g., Government Exhibits 1 through 4-K. Many of the alleged messages
are undated, un-signed, contain various hearsay statements that do not appear to be relevant to
this case, are outside the applicable time frame alleged in the indictment.
by the Palm Beach Police Department and appears to intend to offer hundreds of the messages as
evidence at trial. See, e.g., Government Exhibits 1 through 4-K. Many of the alleged messages
are undated, un-signed, contain various hearsay statements that do not appear to be relevant to
this case, are outside the applicable time frame alleged in the indictment.
B. “CPU’s,” “Zip CD’s,” “CD’s,” and “Flash Cards”
The search warrant inventory identifies numerous electronic storage devices as having
been seized. However, no actual inventory of the alleged contents of these drives appears to have
been prepared by anyone in the Palm Beach Police Department. The items were not identified by
hard drive name or number or photo. Accordingly, there exists no way for anyone to accurately
identify what content may have been on any particular device and how that device may or may
not relate to any issue in this case.
been seized. However, no actual inventory of the alleged contents of these drives appears to have
been prepared by anyone in the Palm Beach Police Department. The items were not identified by
hard drive name or number or photo. Accordingly, there exists no way for anyone to accurately
identify what content may have been on any particular device and how that device may or may
not relate to any issue in this case.
C. Photos
The inventory also lists the seizure of “Photos.” Many of the photos are not identified
with any particularity.
with any particularity.
II. The Proposed Evidence Is Inadmissible Because of a Lack of Authenticity
and Personal Knowledge
and Personal Knowledge
Evidence may be authenticated through direct or circumstantial proof. United States v.
Al–Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008)). “The chain of custody is ordinarily a method of
authentication for physical evidence.” United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1140 (2d Cir.
Al–Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008)). “The chain of custody is ordinarily a method of
authentication for physical evidence.” United States v. Gelzer, 50 F.3d 1133, 1140 (2d Cir.
4
DOJ-OGR-00005732
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document