DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
576 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (government sentencing submission)
File Size:
576 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a government filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The Government argues that victims have a right to be heard at sentencing and opposes the defendant's request to redact victim impact statements, citing that privacy interests belong to the victims, not the defendant. The filing cites legal precedents (Eberhard, Lugosch) regarding the Court's discretion to accept information and the standards for sealing documents.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the sentencing; requested redactions of victim impact statements (Case 1:20-cr-00330 corresponds to Ghisla...
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Opposes redaction of victim impact statements; defers to Court on acceptance of unsolicited statements
|
| The Court | Judicial Body |
Decision maker at sentencing; has discretion to consider information
|
| Victims | Victims |
Have rights to be heard; possess the privacy interest in the documents
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case header and 'The Court'
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR)
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (referenced in legal citations)
|
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga |
Referenced in case citation Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
|
Timeline (1 events)
Future (relative to document)
Relationships (1)
The Government opposes the redaction requests made by the defendant.
Key Quotes (4)
"victims have a right to be heard in connection with sentencing under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
Quote #1
"the Government opposes the redaction of any victim impact statements."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
Quote #2
"To the extent there is a privacy interest at stake in these documents, it belongs to the victims, who are not seeking to file these letters under seal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
Quote #3
"No due process interest is protected by withholding victim impact statements from the public."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010661.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,619 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 673 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 3
victims have a right to be heard in connection with sentencing under the Crime Victims’ Rights
Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4).
Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4).
With respect to all other victim impact statements, which were not solicited by the
Government, the Government is not asking the Court to make any factual findings about these
individuals at sentencing or to consider these statements when weighing the factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, in light of the Court’s “largely unlimited” discretion “as to the kind
of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come,” United States v. Eberhard,
525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up), the Court may accept these statements as part of
the record at sentencing. The Government defers to the Court as to whether and in what form it
wishes to accept statements from these individuals.
Government, the Government is not asking the Court to make any factual findings about these
individuals at sentencing or to consider these statements when weighing the factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, in light of the Court’s “largely unlimited” discretion “as to the kind
of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come,” United States v. Eberhard,
525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up), the Court may accept these statements as part of
the record at sentencing. The Government defers to the Court as to whether and in what form it
wishes to accept statements from these individuals.
Finally, the Government opposes the redaction of any victim impact statements. The
defendant has not justified her redaction requests under the three-part test articulated in Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). To the extent there is a privacy interest
at stake in these documents, it belongs to the victims, who are not seeking to file these letters under
seal. The defendant gestures at a due process interest, but the decisionmaker at sentencing is the
Court, who will be able to review the redacted portions and evaluate them to the extent the Court
thinks them useful. No due process interest is protected by withholding victim impact statements
from the public.
defendant has not justified her redaction requests under the three-part test articulated in Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). To the extent there is a privacy interest
at stake in these documents, it belongs to the victims, who are not seeking to file these letters under
seal. The defendant gestures at a due process interest, but the decisionmaker at sentencing is the
Court, who will be able to review the redacted portions and evaluate them to the extent the Court
thinks them useful. No due process interest is protected by withholding victim impact statements
from the public.
2
DOJ-OGR-00010661
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document