EFTA00032766.pdf

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
—v—
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 4/20/21
20-CR-330 (AJN)
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Last summer, the Court scheduled trial in this matter to commence on July 12, 2021. The
Government filed an S2 Superseding Indictment on March 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 187. The new
indictment alleges that the conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and 3 extended to 2004 (the S1
charged through 1997) and identifies a fourth alleged victim, Minor Victim-4. It also adds two
new charges: Count 5 of the S2 Indictment charges Maxwell with participating in a sex
trafficking conspiracy between 2001 and 2004, and Count 6 charges Maxwell with participating
in the sex trafficking of a minor or aiding and abetting the same. Id.
Since the filing of the S2 indictment, the parties have argued in letters whether its
additional charges and extended timeframe necessitates an adjournment of the trial date. Dkt.
Nos. 192, 199, and 202. Maxwell has also indicated that she either is requesting or will request a
renewed bail hearing in light of the filing of the S2. In Maxwell’s most recent letter, she
expressly requests an adjournment of the scheduled July 12 trial date, though the scope of the
request is unclear. Dkt. No. 202. The letter first argues that a 90-day adjournment is necessary.
But it also states that some of her defense counsel are not available between September and
December 2021, implying that the request is in fact to adjourn until January 2022. The
Government opposes the request for adjournment and any request for a renewed bail hearing.
EFTA00032766

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 5
After the parties submitted these letters, the Court issued its Opinion & Order denying
Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the S1 indictment on multiple grounds. Dkt. No. 207. The Court
also granted severance as to the perjury counts. Both the denial of the motions to dismiss and the
severance of the perjury counts are relevant to the requests for a bail hearing and for an
adjournment of the trial date. The Court addresses both in this Order.
First, the request for a renewed bail hearing is denied. The Court held an original bail
hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive argument and presentation of information, the Court
found that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant’s
appearance as required, determining as a result that Maxwell was a flight risk and that detention
without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). Dkt. No. 23. The Court based its
conclusion on the presumption in favor of detention, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), and its weighing of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
the weight of the evidence, and Maxwell’s history and characteristics. Since that time, Maxwell
has twice sought reconsideration of the Court’s original bail determination and offered different
bail packages and proposed conditions of release. The Court carefully considered those requests
and denied them in written Orders, concluding that none of the new information had any material
bearing on the Court’s original conclusion and that the Government again met its burden of
establishing that Maxwell poses a substantial risk of flight and that no conditions or combination
of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance as required. Dkt. Nos. 106, 169.
Maxwell now seeks a new bail hearing at which “witnesses [would] testify regarding the
purported strength of the government’s case.” Dkt. No. 192 at 3. The request is denied. The S2
Indictment raises no issues that warrant reconsideration of the Court’s prior bail determinations.
On the contrary, the new charges contained in the S2 indictment as well as the Court’s resolution
EFTA00032767

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 5
of the pre-trial motions strengthen, rather than weaken, the Court’s prior conclusions regarding
flight risk. Maxwell is entitled to appeal that detention determination, and she is exercising that
right. But it does not follow that the new charges call for the Court to revisit its three prior bail
determinations. Further, the Court will not hold an evidentiary hearing in which the strength of
the Government’s case is tested. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are
permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v.
LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Before making its prior bail determinations, the
Court scrutinized, among the other relevant factors, the Government’s proffer and concluded that
the proffered case was strong. The ultimate merits of the Government’s case will be tested at
trial in front of a jury. In the meantime, it is the Court’s obligation to ensure that the case
proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and
all relevant circumstances. The Court is obligated to consider what is in the best interest of the
public and the defendant in considering whether delay is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C.
§3161(h)(7)(A). Moreover, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act provides a right “to proceedings free
from unreasonable delay.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7).
This leads directly to the question of the specific start date of trial and Maxwell’s request
for an adjournment. As a preliminary matter, the Court provides the following important
information. Although last summer the Court set trial to commence on July 12, 2021, currently
the precise start date of any trial in the Southern District of New York is not within the control of
the presiding judge. SDNY is still operating under special protocols for jury selection during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Because of a limited number of reconfigured courtrooms and spaces large
enough to hold jury selection and trial safely, the protocols centralize the scheduling of access to
juries and reconfigured courtrooms pursuant to an established protocol for trial priority. The
EFTA00032768

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 5
deadline to submit requests for jury selection dates in the third quarter of 2021 is May 15.
Following the submission of requests, the Clerk’s Office will assign jury selection dates
according to a protocol that has rules of priority. For example, criminal jury trials requesting a
particular jury selection date are given priority over civil jury trials requesting that same date.
Criminal trials involving detained defendants are given priority over criminal trials in which
defendants are not detained pre-trial. Among detained defendants, cases that set trial dates prior
to March 16, 2020 get priority. For any detained defendants whose trial date was set after March
16, 2020, priority is based upon who has been detained the longest. Absent a grant of an
adjournment, by May 15, the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July 12, 2021 as
possible. Once a jury selection date is assigned by the Clerk’s Office, that date is firm. As of
now, the parties should presume that trial will commence on a date close to July 12 (depending
on trial demand and the order of priority) and plan accordingly.
With this information in mind, the Court seeks confirmation and express clarification
from defense counsel for three reasons. First, Maxwell’s request for an adjournment came
before the Court ruled on the pending motions, including the Court’s granting of Maxwell’s
request to sever the perjury counts. Trial on the non-perjury counts will proceed first, which will
shorten preparations for and the length of trial on the non-perjury counts. Second, Maxwell’s
request was ambiguous as to the length of adjournment being requested. As noted, the letter
argued a 90-day adjournment was necessary but also suggested that some number of her defense
counsel would not be available until January 2022. And third, by this Order the Court denies
Maxwell’s request for a renewed bail hearing. All of these factors may influence Maxwell’s
adjournment request.
EFTA00032769

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 5
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS counsel for the Defendant to file written
answers to the following specific questions by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2021:
1. Does defense counsel continue to seek an adjournment of the July 12th start date for
trial on the non-perjury counts?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, what is the specific request being made as to length
of adjournment? In particular, is the request for a 90-day adjournment? An
adjournment until January 2022? Or something else? The Court requires a specific
request be made and justified or it will not be considered.
If Maxwell continues to seek an adjournment, the Government may submit any response
by 5:00 pm on April 22, 2021. The Court will consider the submissions and resolve
expeditiously. As noted, however, unless and until an adjournment is specifically requested and
granted, the parties shall assume that the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July
12th as possible and shall plan accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2021
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
EFTA00032770