This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Doc 385) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues that the Government failed to provide timely notice of 'other act evidence' under Rule 404(b) and requests that the Court view any excuse for this delay with skepticism. The defense requests additional time to investigate newly disclosed materials which the Government claims are 'direct evidence' of conspiracy, though the specific details of these materials are redacted.
This legal document is a filing by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing for the admissibility of specific evidence and witness testimony at an upcoming trial. The Government contends that exhibits and the testimony of "Employee-1," a former employee of Jeffrey Epstein, constitute direct evidence of the offenses charged and should be admitted, citing an October 11, 2021 letter where this evidence was disclosed to the defense.
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 5, 2021, analyzes Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) concerning ex parte applications for pretrial subpoenas. It contrasts the majority view, which generally disfavors such applications unless for trial use, with specific court precedents that permit them to protect sensitive information like trial strategy. The text cites several cases, including Weisman, Fox, and Reyes, to illustrate the legal arguments and differing practices among court districts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity