DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
734 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion in limine / memorandum of law)
File Size:
734 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 148) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. The text constitutes 'Section V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements,' where the defense argues they need early access to Jencks Act material to prepare for trial. They cite the age of the allegations (25 years), the lack of electronic records from that era, the location of witnesses in foreign countries, and the logistical difficulties posed by the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the request.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defense | Legal Counsel |
Moving party requesting accelerated disclosure of witness statements.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Opposing party possessing the witness statements.
|
| Witnesses | Witnesses |
Unnamed individuals located outside the United States whose statements are being sought.
|
| The Court | Judiciary |
The entity being asked to require a proffer or conduct a pretrial hearing.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case header Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002711
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in case law (2d Cir. 1974)
|
Timeline (3 events)
1996 (approximate)
Start of alleged offenses (dating back 25 years from 2021)
Various states and foreign countries
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court and location where subpoena power exists.
|
|
|
Locations where alleged conduct took place and where witnesses are located.
|
|
|
Locations within the US where alleged conduct took place.
|
Relationships (1)
Motion requesting the Court require action from the government.
Key Quotes (4)
"The allegations in this case date back 25 years."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
Quote #1
"At the time of the alleged offenses, electronic recordkeeping was not prevalent."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
Quote #2
"Investigation of witness statements is especially challenging in light of the global pandemic that has imposed numerous constraints..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
Quote #3
"Foreign investigation may also require depositions... in the absence of subpoena power to compel witness testimony in the United States."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,179 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 23
statements they already heard. Rather than risk a mistrial, the Court should require a proffer
from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible.
from the government or conduct a pretrial hearing to determine if the statements are admissible.
V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements
The defense moves for accelerated disclosure of witness statements, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3500 (“Jencks Act”) and Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In
order to properly investigate and prepare for trial, the defense will need the Jencks Act material
well in advance of trial. The allegations in this case date back 25 years. At the time of the
alleged offenses, electronic recordkeeping was not prevalent. As a result, records and files,
should they still exist, may be archived or hard to retrieve. Moreover, the conduct alleged in the
indictment purportedly took place in other states and in foreign countries over a four-year period.
Statements pertaining to witnesses who are located outside United States will potentially require
international travel to investigate. Foreign investigation may also require depositions, pursuant
to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in the absence of subpoena power to
compel witness testimony in the United States. Investigation of witness statements is especially
challenging in light of the global pandemic that has imposed numerous constraints, including
restrictions on travel, mandated periods of quarantine, closure of public offices and businesses,
and the reluctance of witnesses to meet in person. While these challenges cannot be eliminated
entirely, early disclosure can help alleviate them and afford the defense a fair opportunity to
make use of the Jencks Act material.
U.S.C. § 3500 (“Jencks Act”) and Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In
order to properly investigate and prepare for trial, the defense will need the Jencks Act material
well in advance of trial. The allegations in this case date back 25 years. At the time of the
alleged offenses, electronic recordkeeping was not prevalent. As a result, records and files,
should they still exist, may be archived or hard to retrieve. Moreover, the conduct alleged in the
indictment purportedly took place in other states and in foreign countries over a four-year period.
Statements pertaining to witnesses who are located outside United States will potentially require
international travel to investigate. Foreign investigation may also require depositions, pursuant
to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in the absence of subpoena power to
compel witness testimony in the United States. Investigation of witness statements is especially
challenging in light of the global pandemic that has imposed numerous constraints, including
restrictions on travel, mandated periods of quarantine, closure of public offices and businesses,
and the reluctance of witnesses to meet in person. While these challenges cannot be eliminated
entirely, early disclosure can help alleviate them and afford the defense a fair opportunity to
make use of the Jencks Act material.
On a case-by-case basis, courts can exercise their discretion and supervisory power to
urge the production of Jencks Act material in advance of trial in the interests of judicial economy
to avoid unnecessary delays during the course of the trial. See United States v. Percevault, 490
F.2d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 1974). The circumstances of this case – the age of the offenses, the
urge the production of Jencks Act material in advance of trial in the interests of judicial economy
to avoid unnecessary delays during the course of the trial. See United States v. Percevault, 490
F.2d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 1974). The circumstances of this case – the age of the offenses, the
14
DOJ-OGR-00002711
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document