DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
717 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (government memorandum/brief)
File Size:
717 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 307) by the Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 25, 2021. The text argues that the Government did not violate Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights by obtaining and using her deposition transcripts from a previous civil case. It cites Second Circuit precedent to establish that civil protective orders do not guarantee protection against the use of testimony in subsequent criminal prosecutions.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Defendant in a criminal case arguing that the Government violated her right against self-incrimination by using previ...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government (USA/DOJ) |
Party arguing against Maxwell's motion, asserting they did not violate her rights.
|
|
| U.S. Supreme Court |
Cited for legal precedents regarding the Fifth Amendment.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited for legal precedents regarding Rule 26(c) protective orders.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Information Services (indicated by the Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-06-25
Filing of Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Federal Court (SDNY implied)
The Government
Ghislaine Maxwell
Prior to 2021-06-25
Relationships (1)
The document is a legal argument by the Government opposing Maxwell's claims regarding her Fifth Amendment rights.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Government did not violate Maxwell’s right against self-incrimination"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell contends that the Government violated her right against compelled self-incrimination by obtaining copies of her deposition transcripts from her earlier civil case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
Quote #2
"She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
Quote #3
"A Rule 26(c) protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government’s hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,074 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 6 of 21
A. The Government did not violate Maxwell’s right against self-incrimination
The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “The [Supreme] Court has held
repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral
compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S.
391, 397 (1976) (quoting Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918)). It does not prohibit
the Government from using a defendant’s voluntary statements in a subsequent criminal
prosecution.
case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “The [Supreme] Court has held
repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral
compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S.
391, 397 (1976) (quoting Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918)). It does not prohibit
the Government from using a defendant’s voluntary statements in a subsequent criminal
prosecution.
To establish a violation of the right against compelled self-incrimination, Maxwell must
“demonstrate the existence of three elements: 1) compulsion, 2) a testimonial communication,
and 3) the incriminating nature of that communication.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d
1166, 1168 (2d Cir. 1987). Maxwell contends that the Government violated her right against
compelled self-incrimination by obtaining copies of her deposition transcripts from her earlier
civil case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment
rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S.
248, 263–24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed
the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and
using it in a subsequent criminal case against her.
“demonstrate the existence of three elements: 1) compulsion, 2) a testimonial communication,
and 3) the incriminating nature of that communication.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d
1166, 1168 (2d Cir. 1987). Maxwell contends that the Government violated her right against
compelled self-incrimination by obtaining copies of her deposition transcripts from her earlier
civil case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment
rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S.
248, 263–24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed
the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and
using it in a subsequent criminal case against her.
Second Circuit precedent expressly forecloses Maxwell’s argument. “A Rule 26(c)
protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compelled testimony
will not somehow find its way into the government’s hands for use in a subsequent criminal
prosecution.” Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir.
1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overturned
protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compelled testimony
will not somehow find its way into the government’s hands for use in a subsequent criminal
prosecution.” Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir.
1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overturned
6
DOJ-OGR-00004790
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document