The document details an adversarial legal relationship where the Government is arguing against a motion and proposed jury instruction submitted by the defense.
The document describes the government and the defense as opposing parties in legal proceedings, both of whom may seek to use ex parte applications for subpoenas under Rule 17(c).
The document describes the government and the defense as opposing parties in legal proceedings, both of whom may seek to use ex parte applications for subpoenas under Rule 17(c).
The document describes conversations between the Government and the defense, and outlines a 'Joint Position' they have agreed upon, indicating a professional, adversarial relationship with the capacity for cooperation on procedural matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002896.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005204.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, is a joint request from the prosecution (Government) and the defense to the Court. Both parties ask that only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday be selected for the trial. The defense estimates its case will last approximately two weeks but notes this may change after reviewing late-night disclosures from the Government, which the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had not yet received due to delivery issues at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a portion of a government motion arguing against the defense's proposed jury instruction. The Government contends that the defense's instruction regarding sexual activity with 'Minor Victim-3' is wrong on the law and that the relevance of United Kingdom's age of consent law should be disregarded. The document also states that the Government has already provided the defense with discovery materials, including the identities of alleged co-conspirators, making the defense's request to preclude their statements baseless.
Entities connected to both GOVERNMENT and Defense
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship