DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
688 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (page 6 of 15)
File Size:
688 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
The legal argument centers on preventing deposition material related to her from being unsealed before she can presen...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Issued an order relevant to the appeal; Maxwell wishes to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Issued an order to unseal deposition material; the brief argues she should have a chance to reconsider based on new i...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court |
Cited for the precedent set in Flanagan v. United States.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in Giuffre v. Maxwell reference.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in the footer stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Future/Pending context)
Relationships (2)
Ms. Maxwell is attempting to influence Judge Preska's order regarding unsealing deposition materials.
The brief implies information from Judge Nathan's proceedings is relevant to Judge Preska's decision making.
Key Quotes (3)
"Unless Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska what she learned from Judge Nathan, Judge Preska’s order unsealing the deposition material will go into effect without Judge Preska’s getting the chance to reconsider her decision in light of the new information."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
Quote #1
"And once the deposition material is unsealed, the cat is irretrievably out of the bag."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
Quote #2
"That is precisely why this Court stayed Judge Preska’s order pending appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,591 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page6 of 15
In Flanagan v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that an order
disqualifying criminal counsel pretrial was not immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine. 465 U.S. 259, 266 (1984). The Court explained that unlike
an order denying a motion to reduce bail, which “becomes moot if review awaits
conviction and sentence,” an order disqualifying counsel is fully remediable
posttrial. Id. Moreover, a motion to disqualify counsel is “not independent of the
issues to be tried” because its “validity cannot be adequately reviewed until trial is
complete.” Id. at 268. Finally, unlike an appeal of a bail decision, “an appeal of a
disqualification order interrupts the trial,” and any delay in a criminal case “exacts
a presumptively prohibitive price.” Id. at 269.
disqualifying criminal counsel pretrial was not immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine. 465 U.S. 259, 266 (1984). The Court explained that unlike
an order denying a motion to reduce bail, which “becomes moot if review awaits
conviction and sentence,” an order disqualifying counsel is fully remediable
posttrial. Id. Moreover, a motion to disqualify counsel is “not independent of the
issues to be tried” because its “validity cannot be adequately reviewed until trial is
complete.” Id. at 268. Finally, unlike an appeal of a bail decision, “an appeal of a
disqualification order interrupts the trial,” and any delay in a criminal case “exacts
a presumptively prohibitive price.” Id. at 269.
Unlike the disqualification order at issue in Flanagan, the appeal of Judge
Nathan’s order is like the appeal of an order denying a motion to reduce bail. First,
this appeal will “become[] moot if review awaits conviction and sentence.” See id.
at 266. Unless Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska what she learned from
Judge Nathan, Judge Preska’s order unsealing the deposition material will go into
effect without Judge Preska’s getting the chance to reconsider her decision in light
of the new information. And once the deposition material is unsealed, the cat is
irretrievably out of the bag. That is precisely why this Court stayed Judge Preska’s
order pending appeal. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), Doc. 30.
Nathan’s order is like the appeal of an order denying a motion to reduce bail. First,
this appeal will “become[] moot if review awaits conviction and sentence.” See id.
at 266. Unless Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska what she learned from
Judge Nathan, Judge Preska’s order unsealing the deposition material will go into
effect without Judge Preska’s getting the chance to reconsider her decision in light
of the new information. And once the deposition material is unsealed, the cat is
irretrievably out of the bag. That is precisely why this Court stayed Judge Preska’s
order pending appeal. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), Doc. 30.
5
DOJ-OGR-00019597
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document