DOJ-OGR-00005517.jpg
718 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
718 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's counsel arguing against the government's motion to limit the introduction of her statements at trial. The defense contends the motion is premature and improper because the government has not identified any specific hearsay statements it seeks to exclude. The filing asserts that the correct procedure is for the government to object to any potential hearsay testimony as it arises during the trial, allowing the Court to rule on admissibility in context.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Subject of the motion |
Mentioned throughout the document as the individual whose statements the government seeks to limit. Referred to as 'M...
|
| Ferrier | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Ferrier v. Duckworth'.
|
| Duckworth | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Ferrier v. Duckworth'.
|
| Velez | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE GOVERNMENT | government agency |
The party that filed the motion to limit Ms. Maxwell's statements.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as prescribing rules of evidence.
|
| Novartis Pharms. Corp. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.'.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document, likely standing for Department of Justice - Office of General Records or similar.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The document discusses the rules of evidence and procedures for an upcoming trial involving Ms. Maxwell.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation as the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes a motion filed by 'THE GOVERNMENT' against 'Ms. Maxwell' in a criminal case (cr-00330).
The document states 'Counsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow them,' indicating a legal representation relationship.
Key Quotes (3)
"The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay."Source
— Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545, 547
(Quoted to explain the purpose of the hearsay rule.)
DOJ-OGR-00005517.jpg
Quote #1
"‘motion to exclude hearsay’... is yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions. . . ."Source
— Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
(Quoted to argue that the government's motion is an improper use of a motion in limine.)
DOJ-OGR-00005517.jpg
Quote #2
"If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney... should stand up and object, and the Court will rule."Source
— Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
(Quoted as the proper procedure for handling hearsay testimony during a trial, rather than through a pre-trial motion.)
DOJ-OGR-00005517.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,073 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 62 of 69
VIII. THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL’S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME
Hearsay is a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Hearsay is not admissible unless allowed by a federal statute; the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802. “The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay.” Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545, 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 988 (1990).
Counsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow them. Notably, there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule, many of which could be applicable at any trial in this case, for example, those contained in Fed. R. Evid. 803(1) through 803(23). Ms. Maxwell has not moved in limine to admit any hearsay statement, and the government does not identify any statement made by Ms. Maxwell that it believes will be at issue in this trial. Basically, the government is asking the Court to enter an order directing the parties to follow the Rules of Evidence.
The failure of the government to identify any statement or circumstance where a statement might be offered makes it impossible for the Court to rule on the admissibility of this unknown evidence. As noted by the court in Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194 CM, 2010 WL 11043081, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010), the “‘motion to exclude hearsay’... is yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions. . . .” Denying the motion, the court directed the following solution: “If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney... should stand up and object, and the Court will rule.” Id.
54
DOJ-OGR-00005517
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document