DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
687 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page 20 of 21)
File Size:
687 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of 21 of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the Government did not violate her due process rights when it obtained evidence from her earlier civil case via a modification to a protective order signed by Judge McMahon. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments based on the 'Martindell' and 'Franks' legal standards.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Seeking suppression of evidence based on alleged due process violations and governmental misconduct.
|
| Judge McMahon | Judge |
Issued a modification order regarding a protective order; the current Court is deferring to her decision.
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
The presiding judge (Judge Engelmayer per case number PAE) denying Maxwell's motion to suppress.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; accused by Maxwell of misrepresenting facts and violating due process.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
06/25/21
Court ruling finding the Government did not violate Maxwell's rights.
Court
Prior to 06/25/21
Judge McMahon issued a modification order regarding a protective order.
Court
Relationships (2)
Maxwell alleges Government misrepresented facts; Government opposes suppression.
The Court affords deference to Judge McMahon's reasoned and supported decision.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court is not persuaded."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
Quote #1
"Due process does not categorically bar an ex parte modification to a protective order"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
Quote #2
"the Court finds that the Government did not violate Maxwell’s constitutional rights when it obtained evidence covered by a protective order in her earlier civil case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
Quote #3
"Maxwell is not entitled to suppression of any evidence"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,969 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 20 of 21
entitled to deference. As discussed, the Court is aware of no authority suggesting review of
Judge McMahon’s modification order is necessary or appropriate in these circumstances. If
necessary, the Court would afford it deference and would not disturb Judge McMahon’s
reasoned and supported decision.
Judge McMahon’s modification order is necessary or appropriate in these circumstances. If
necessary, the Court would afford it deference and would not disturb Judge McMahon’s
reasoned and supported decision.
Maxwell’s reply brief recasts her claim for suppression under Martindell as simply
another argument for suppression under due process or the Court’s inherent authority. Because,
in her view, the Government did not satisfy the requirements of Martindell, its attempt to modify
the protective order violated her due process rights. And because, she alleges, the Government
misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon, this Court should exercise its inherent authority to
suppress evidence as a sanction for governmental misconduct.
another argument for suppression under due process or the Court’s inherent authority. Because,
in her view, the Government did not satisfy the requirements of Martindell, its attempt to modify
the protective order violated her due process rights. And because, she alleges, the Government
misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon, this Court should exercise its inherent authority to
suppress evidence as a sanction for governmental misconduct.
The Court is not persuaded. For the reasons set forth above, the Government’s
application for modification of the protective order did not violate Maxwell’s due process rights.
Due process does not categorically bar an ex parte modification to a protective order, and Judge
McMahon found that the Government had shown extraordinary circumstances to do so. To the
extent Maxwell seeks suppression based on an alleged misrepresentation to Judge McMahon, for
the reasons set forth above, she has not met the high bar for a due process violation or made the
required showing under Franks that would entitle her to an evidentiary hearing. Whether
Maxwell advances these arguments under Martindell or directly under due process, they do not
support suppression.
application for modification of the protective order did not violate Maxwell’s due process rights.
Due process does not categorically bar an ex parte modification to a protective order, and Judge
McMahon found that the Government had shown extraordinary circumstances to do so. To the
extent Maxwell seeks suppression based on an alleged misrepresentation to Judge McMahon, for
the reasons set forth above, she has not met the high bar for a due process violation or made the
required showing under Franks that would entitle her to an evidentiary hearing. Whether
Maxwell advances these arguments under Martindell or directly under due process, they do not
support suppression.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Government did not violate Maxwell’s
constitutional rights when it obtained evidence covered by a protective order in her earlier civil
case. It further finds that Maxwell is not entitled to suppression of any evidence or to an
constitutional rights when it obtained evidence covered by a protective order in her earlier civil
case. It further finds that Maxwell is not entitled to suppression of any evidence or to an
20
DOJ-OGR-00004804
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document