DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 6, 2021. It details a judicial rejection of defense arguments that a witness named 'Jane' waived attorney-client privilege by cooperating with the government. The court rules that essential information regarding credibility does not automatically void privilege, citing Rule 403 and previous transcripts.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the trial; Jane is testifying against her.
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim (Pseudonym) |
Cooperating witness whose attorney-client privilege fits are being discussed.
|
| Glassman | Attorney (presumed) |
Mentioned in the context of privilege waiver: 'Glassman could not waive the privilege.'
|
| The Court | Judge/Judicial Body |
Quoted regarding attorney advice and privilege.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Referenced regarding cooperation agreements and cross-examination preparation.
|
|
| Defense |
Argued that privilege was waived; arguments rejected by the court.
|
Relationships (3)
Jane is 'testifying against Ms. Maxwell'.
Jane is 'cooperating with the government'.
Key Quotes (3)
"Jane’s motive for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is essential to the government’s assessment of Jane’s credibility"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
Quote #1
"Glassman could not waive the privilege."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
Quote #2
"THE COURT: The attorney’s advice to the client about whether they should take a plea and what assistance that might get them and all of that obviously is privileged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,131 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 528 Filed 12/06/21 Page 4 of 8
kept confidential because it was information the Government “would want to know” and “Jane
would want the government to know,” (Def. Letter at 2); and (2) any privilege was waived when
the statement was disclosed to the Government. These arguments lack merit. The first suggests a
limitation on the privilege that would swallow its protections. The second errs because Glassman
could not waive the privilege. And in any event, the probative value of this testimony is so slight
that it should be excluded under Rule 403.
would want the government to know,” (Def. Letter at 2); and (2) any privilege was waived when
the statement was disclosed to the Government. These arguments lack merit. The first suggests a
limitation on the privilege that would swallow its protections. The second errs because Glassman
could not waive the privilege. And in any event, the probative value of this testimony is so slight
that it should be excluded under Rule 403.
First, the defense argues that the advice was not intended to be kept confidential because
“Jane’s motive for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is
essential to the government’s assessment of Jane’s credibility and its preparation for her cross-
examination.” (Def. Letter at 3). This theory suggests that anything which would be essential to
the Government’s assessment of a witness’ credibility and preparation for cross-examination
cannot be kept confidential, and so is not privileged. Such a rule is not the law. If it were, it would
effectuate a subject-matter waiver about innumerable topics, to the great detriment of the attorney-
client relationship. The Government and the defense would be entitled to invade that relationship
to learn about the client’s discussions on topics that go to bias, motive, or other items material to
a case. For instance, the Government frequently calls witnesses testifying pursuant to a
cooperation agreement. Once the cooperation agreement is signed, the Government could not—
and would not—ask the cooperator for a proffer of their conversations with their counsel about
their motives to testify. See 12/01/21 Tr. at 567 (“THE COURT: The attorney’s advice to the
client about whether they should take a plea and what assistance that might get them and all of that
obviously is privileged.”). Or, for instance, the Government sometimes immunizes witnesses and
calls them to testify. The Government could not—and would not—ask the immunized witnesses
“Jane’s motive for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is
essential to the government’s assessment of Jane’s credibility and its preparation for her cross-
examination.” (Def. Letter at 3). This theory suggests that anything which would be essential to
the Government’s assessment of a witness’ credibility and preparation for cross-examination
cannot be kept confidential, and so is not privileged. Such a rule is not the law. If it were, it would
effectuate a subject-matter waiver about innumerable topics, to the great detriment of the attorney-
client relationship. The Government and the defense would be entitled to invade that relationship
to learn about the client’s discussions on topics that go to bias, motive, or other items material to
a case. For instance, the Government frequently calls witnesses testifying pursuant to a
cooperation agreement. Once the cooperation agreement is signed, the Government could not—
and would not—ask the cooperator for a proffer of their conversations with their counsel about
their motives to testify. See 12/01/21 Tr. at 567 (“THE COURT: The attorney’s advice to the
client about whether they should take a plea and what assistance that might get them and all of that
obviously is privileged.”). Or, for instance, the Government sometimes immunizes witnesses and
calls them to testify. The Government could not—and would not—ask the immunized witnesses
4
DOJ-OGR-00008240
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document