DOJ-OGR-00015152.jpg
749 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
749 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Doc 809) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against unsealing grand jury materials, claiming the Government has not met the 'special circumstances' burden. The text extensively cites the precedent 'In re Biaggi,' arguing that unsealing is only justified to correct misleading public characterizations, and suggests the Government's current motion is a 'diversion' rather than true transparency.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alger Hiss | State Department Official |
Cited in a legal precedent regarding grand jury testimony.
|
| Mario Biaggi | Mayoral Candidate / Movant |
Subject of the 'In re Biaggi' precedent regarding the unsealing of grand jury testimony.
|
| Henry Friendly | Chief Judge (Second Circuit) |
Judge who authorized disclosure of testimony in the 'In re Biaggi' case.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant (Implied) |
Mentioned as 'Maxwell grand jury materials'; the subject of the current motion.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The prosecution/DOJ, accused in this brief of disingenuous motives for unsealing materials.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals; source of the 'special circumstances' doctrine.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
|
| State Department |
Employer of Alger Hiss.
|
Timeline (1 events)
08/11/25
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
District Court for the District of Columbia (cited in case notes).
|
Relationships (2)
Brief argues against the Government's motion to unseal Maxwell grand jury materials.
Discusses the 'In re Biaggi' case where the Government moved for disclosure of his testimony.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government has not cited any case finding such materials to present a “special circumstance” that justifies the exceptional step of unsealing grand jury materials."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015152.jpg
Quote #1
"A member of the public... might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at “transparency” but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015152.jpg
Quote #2
"In re Biaggi, the fountainhead of the Second Circuit’s “special circumstances” doctrine—permitting a court to order the release of grand jury testimony to correct a movant’s misleading public characterization of it."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015152.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,209 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 20 of 31
by State Department official Alger Hiss); see also note 12, supra (citing similar D.D.C. cases). None of these cases involved the secondhand, summary-witness testimony of law enforcement agents. None involved testimony that, by the time of the motion, had already come to light as a result of trial testimony by percipient witnesses on the indictment returned by the grand jury.
The Government has not cited any case finding such materials to present a “special circumstance” that justifies the exceptional step of unsealing grand jury materials. There is none.
The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal. A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at “transparency” but at diversion—aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such. And there is precedent—In re Biaggi, the fountainhead of the Second Circuit’s “special circumstances” doctrine—permitting a court to order the release of grand jury testimony to correct a movant’s misleading public characterization of it.
In re Biaggi arose from a motion by a mayoral candidate, Mario Biaggi, to reveal his earlier grand jury testimony, ostensibly to rebut a news report that he had invoked the Fifth Amendment. 478 F.2d at 490–91. Denying he had done so, Biaggi asked, on television and later in a motion, that the court examine his testimony and publicly confirm that he had claimed no constitutional privileges. Id. at 491. The Government moved for disclosure of Biaggi’s testimony, redacted to protect others’ names, and the district court granted that motion; Biaggi appealed, seeking disclosure of his testimony without redactions. Id. The Second Circuit, per Chief Judge Friendly, authorized disclosure of the testimony, emphasizing that Biaggi and the Government had waived objections to disclosure, and that others’ interests could be protected by
20
DOJ-OGR-00015152
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document