DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal ruling in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal complexities of trying Maxwell for both perjury and Mann Act charges simultaneously, specifically focusing on the potential conflict of interest and prejudice if her civil attorneys are called as witnesses. The Court weighs the burden of separate trials against the lack of overlap in evidence between the perjury and sex trafficking charges.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal prosecution; document discusses her Sixth Amendment rights and potential prejudice regarding ...
|
| Counsel / Attorneys | Legal Defense |
Attorneys who represented Maxwell in a civil case and are familiar with the facts; potential witnesses regarding perj...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited for legal precedent regarding witness testimony by attorneys.
|
|
| The Court |
The entity issuing this opinion (likely SDNY based on case number).
|
|
| The Government |
Party arguing against Maxwell's concerns regarding the trial scope.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
Filing of Document 207 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Court Record
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Cited in case law (United States v. Kincade).
|
Relationships (1)
attorneys who represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years
Key Quotes (4)
"The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
Quote #1
"But much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts and the Mann Act counts does not overlap."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
Quote #2
"Disqualification of counsel also implicates Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
Quote #3
"And while the Court agrees with the Government that at least some of Maxwell’s concerns are overstated, there is little question that the jury’s consideration of the nature of the defamation action will require a significant investment of time and resources to provide the requisite context."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,123 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page166 of 208
A-162
A-162
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 25 of 34
counsel testify on her behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist her in defending the
Mann Act charges.
Mann Act charges.
The Second Circuit has recognized that witness testimony offered by a party’s attorney
presents serious risks to the fairness of a trial. See Murray v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173,
178 (2d Cir. 2009). The lawyer might appear to vouch for their own credibility, jurors might
perceive the lawyer as distorting the truth to benefit their client, and blurred lines between
argument and evidence might confuse the jury. Id. Disqualification of counsel also implicates
Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. See, e.g.,
United States v. Kincade, No. 15-cr-00071 (JAD) (GWF), 2016 WL 6154901, at *6 (D. Nev.
Oct. 21, 2016). The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who
represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with
the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution. See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d
1064, 1070–71 (2d Cir. 1982).
presents serious risks to the fairness of a trial. See Murray v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173,
178 (2d Cir. 2009). The lawyer might appear to vouch for their own credibility, jurors might
perceive the lawyer as distorting the truth to benefit their client, and blurred lines between
argument and evidence might confuse the jury. Id. Disqualification of counsel also implicates
Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. See, e.g.,
United States v. Kincade, No. 15-cr-00071 (JAD) (GWF), 2016 WL 6154901, at *6 (D. Nev.
Oct. 21, 2016). The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who
represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with
the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution. See United States v. Cunningham, 672 F.2d
1064, 1070–71 (2d Cir. 1982).
The Court is of course cognizant of the burden separate trials may impose on all trial
participants. But much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts and the Mann Act counts does
not overlap. In particular, materiality for statements made in a civil deposition is broad, and
evidence on that question is unlikely to bear on the other charges here. See Kross, 14 F.3d at
753–54; Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509. Although some allegations of sexual abuse are relevant to
both sets of charges, many are not. At a minimum, this will expand the scope of the trial far
beyond the narrower issues presented. And while the Court agrees with the Government that at
least some of Maxwell’s concerns are overstated, there is little question that the jury’s
consideration of the nature of the defamation action will require a significant investment of time
and resources to provide the requisite context.
participants. But much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts and the Mann Act counts does
not overlap. In particular, materiality for statements made in a civil deposition is broad, and
evidence on that question is unlikely to bear on the other charges here. See Kross, 14 F.3d at
753–54; Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509. Although some allegations of sexual abuse are relevant to
both sets of charges, many are not. At a minimum, this will expand the scope of the trial far
beyond the narrower issues presented. And while the Court agrees with the Government that at
least some of Maxwell’s concerns are overstated, there is little question that the jury’s
consideration of the nature of the defamation action will require a significant investment of time
and resources to provide the requisite context.
25
DOJ-OGR-00020784
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document