DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal ruling
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This document is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and the admissibility of evidence concerning the thoroughness of the government's investigation. The Court rules to preclude the defense from introducing affirmative evidence attacking the investigation's thoroughness unless it is probative of the defendant's guilt, citing cases such as United States v. Figueroa and Kyles v. Whitley.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge (The Court) | Judge |
Speaker issuing a ruling on evidence admissibility (implied by 'I think', 'I provide').
|
| Criminal Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the trial (Ghislaine Maxwell, indicated by Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
| Government Witnesses | Witnesses |
Mentioned in the context of cross-examination rights.
|
| Informant | Informant |
Mentioned in the citation of Kyles v. Whitley.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm listed in footer.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced in legal citation (Kyles v. Whitley).
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) |
Referenced in legal citation (United States v. Figueroa).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00008399'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by Case number suffix PAE and 'Southern District Reporters'.
|
Relationships (1)
Defense
→
Legal Adversaries
→
Government
Reference to 'parties' extensive briefing' and cross-examination of government witnesses.
Key Quotes (3)
"First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
Quote #1
"Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
Quote #2
"Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant... it's not relevant or admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the crimes charged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,616 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 24 17
LB1TMAX1
LB1TMAX1
1 Fourth, the confrontation clause of the Sixth
2 Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to
3 meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses at trial.
4 United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, (2d Cir. 2008).
5 Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the
6 believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are
7 tested. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, (1974).
8 With this legal framework in mind, and in light of the
9 parties' extensive briefing on these issues, I think the
10 admissibility of some of the proposed evidence can be
11 determined now, but the admissibility of other evidence will
12 require additional facts and the context of trial to decide,
13 but I think it's important for me to give guidance.
14 Based on the papers before me, I provide the following
15 guidance: First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence
16 by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the
17 investigation. Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness
18 of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant
19 and may in some cases be admissible, it's not relevant or
20 admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the
21 crimes charged.
22 In its briefing, the defense relies heavily on Kyles
23 v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held
24 that an informant's statements to police were material for
25 purposes of Brady disclosures because the statements could be
2 Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to
3 meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses at trial.
4 United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, (2d Cir. 2008).
5 Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the
6 believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are
7 tested. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, (1974).
8 With this legal framework in mind, and in light of the
9 parties' extensive briefing on these issues, I think the
10 admissibility of some of the proposed evidence can be
11 determined now, but the admissibility of other evidence will
12 require additional facts and the context of trial to decide,
13 but I think it's important for me to give guidance.
14 Based on the papers before me, I provide the following
15 guidance: First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence
16 by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the
17 investigation. Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness
18 of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant
19 and may in some cases be admissible, it's not relevant or
20 admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the
21 crimes charged.
22 In its briefing, the defense relies heavily on Kyles
23 v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held
24 that an informant's statements to police were material for
25 purposes of Brady disclosures because the statements could be
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008399
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document