DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
636 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal ruling
File Size:
636 KB
Summary
This page is from a court order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses discovery disputes, specifically ruling that the Government's agreement to produce 'Giglio' and 'Jencks Act' materials six weeks prior to trial is sufficient for Maxwell to prepare, noting the Court lacks authority to force earlier disclosure of Jencks material. The Court also denies Maxwell's request for a pretrial hearing regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, opting instead for conditional admission at trial.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the court order; seeking expedited discovery of Jencks Act material and hearings on co-conspirator stateme...
|
| AJN | Judge (implied by case number) |
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Judge Alison J. Nathan).
|
| Coppa | Legal Precedent Name |
Referenced in legal citation regarding discovery timing.
|
| Tracy | Legal Precedent Name |
Referenced in legal citation regarding co-conspirator statements.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution team; agreed to produce materials six weeks before trial.
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body issuing the order (District Court).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedents.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Six weeks prior to trial
Relationships (1)
Maxwell seeks expedited discovery; Government agrees to specific timelines; Court mediates.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively prepare for trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
Quote #1
"The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, 'provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court also rejects Maxwell’s alternative request for a hearing to determine the admissibility of co-conspirator declarations."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,142 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page171 of 208
A-167
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 34
A-167
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 34
reason to doubt these representations given its expansive approach to document production thus
far in this case. The Government has agreed in its recent letter to produce Giglio material six
weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall negotiate the specific timing, but assuming a
schedule along those lines is met, the Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively
prepare for trial. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 144.
far in this case. The Government has agreed in its recent letter to produce Giglio material six
weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall negotiate the specific timing, but assuming a
schedule along those lines is met, the Court concludes that Maxwell will be able to effectively
prepare for trial. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 144.
B. Jencks Act material and co-conspirator statements
Maxwell also seeks to expedite discovery of Jencks Act material and non-exculpatory
statements of co-conspirators that the government may offer at trial. The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3500, “provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of
discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination.” Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. The
statute therefore prohibits a district court in most cases from ordering the pretrial disclosure of
witness statements unless those statements are exculpatory. “A coconspirator who testifies on
behalf of the government is a witness under the Act.” In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d
Cir. 1987). The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures. In any
case, the Government has agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six weeks in advance
of trial.
statements of co-conspirators that the government may offer at trial. The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3500, “provides that no prior statement made by a government witness shall be the subject of
discovery until that witness has testified on direct examination.” Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. The
statute therefore prohibits a district court in most cases from ordering the pretrial disclosure of
witness statements unless those statements are exculpatory. “A coconspirator who testifies on
behalf of the government is a witness under the Act.” In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d
Cir. 1987). The Court therefore lacks the inherent power to expedite these disclosures. In any
case, the Government has agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six weeks in advance
of trial.
The Court also rejects Maxwell’s alternative request for a hearing to determine the
admissibility of co-conspirator declarations. Co-conspirator statements may often be admitted at
trial on a conditional basis. If the Court determines that the Government has not met its burden
to show that the conditionally admitted statements were made in furtherance of the charged
conspiracy, the Court should provide a limiting instruction or, in extreme cases declare a
mistrial. United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Although conditional
admissions can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government
admissibility of co-conspirator declarations. Co-conspirator statements may often be admitted at
trial on a conditional basis. If the Court determines that the Government has not met its burden
to show that the conditionally admitted statements were made in furtherance of the charged
conspiracy, the Court should provide a limiting instruction or, in extreme cases declare a
mistrial. United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993). Although conditional
admissions can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government
30
DOJ-OGR-00020789
DOJ-OGR-00020789
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document