DOJ-OGR-00001745.jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (page 3 of 4)
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This is page 3 of a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 25, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's request for an order against the BOP regarding her surveillance and confinement conditions, citing security concerns and deference to prison administrators. However, the Court orders the Government to provide written status updates every 90 days regarding any changes to her conditions to ensure she can participate in her defense.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the court order regarding confinement conditions and surveillance.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Issuing the order, denying the request but ordering status updates.
|
| MDC Staff | Prison Staff |
Mentioned regarding monitoring counsel meetings (visible but not audible).
|
| Counsel | Defense Attorneys |
Lawyers representing Maxwell.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; agency responsible for Maxwell's confinement.
|
|
| MDC |
Metropolitan Detention Center; facility where Maxwell is held.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; assured the court regarding counsel access and ordered to provide updates.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-08-25
2020-08-25
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Detention center where the defendant is held.
|
Relationships (2)
Court credits BOP's duty to ensure safety and security of the Defendant.
Government assured the Court regarding inmate access; Court orders Government to provide updates.
Key Quotes (5)
"“[a]s long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001745.jpg
Quote #1
"“Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001745.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court sees no basis for granting the Defendant’s request for an order directed to BOP."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001745.jpg
Quote #3
"As a result, Defendant’s request is denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001745.jpg
Quote #4
"the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to provide written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001745.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,119 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 49 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 4
Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees.” Dkt. No. 42 at 5. In a footnote, the defense clarifies that “[a]s long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population.” Dkt. No. 42 at 5 n.4.
The Court sees no basis for granting the Defendant’s request for an order directed to BOP. First, the Government has assured the Court that “[a]s with all inmates, the defendant is able to speak to her counsel behind a closed door, in an area that is visible—but not audible—to MDC staff,” thereby ensuring that Ms. Maxwell’s ability to communicate with her counsel is in no way interfered. Dkt. No. 41 at 4 n.5. And as to the more general implementation of surveillance procedures, the Court credits BOP’s duty to ensure the safety and security of the Defendant as justifying the measures BOP has adopted. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (“Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.”). Nor does the Defendant provide any basis for the Court to conclude that the level of surveillance is punitive. Dkt. No. 42 at 5. Though pretrial detainees “may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law,” Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535, it does not follow that surveillance measures are punitive just because the Defendant deems them “onerous.” Dkt. No. 42 at 4. The Defendant has provided the Court with no evidence, and no reason to believe, that the surveillance measures are motivated by improper purposes.
As a result, Defendant’s request is denied. To ensure that Ms. Maxwell is able to continue to adequately participate in her defense, however, the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to provide written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the
3
DOJ-OGR-00001745
DOJ-OGR-00001745
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document