DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
642 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
642 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that there are witnesses the defense considered calling but did not because these individuals would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, as the government could have charged them criminally based on prior testimony. The Court acknowledges that the defense cannot offer immunity like the government can, but views the jury charge under discussion as standard.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the case (Judge Alison J. Nathan based on case number AJN), discussing the inability of the defense to...
|
| MR. EVERDELL | Defense Attorney |
Christian Everdell; arguing regarding witnesses the defense considered calling but who faced potential criminal charg...
|
| Unnamed Witnesses | Potential Witnesses |
Individuals the defense wanted to call but who would have invoked 5th Amendment rights due to potential criminal liab...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting service listed in footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; discussed in the context of granting statutory immunity.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by DOJ-OGR stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Courtroom
The Court
Mr. Everdell
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (implied by reporter name and case number format).
|
Relationships (2)
Everdell discusses potential witnesses he considered calling but didn't due to self-incrimination risks.
Everdell states the government could clearly have charged these individuals criminally based on testimony.
Key Quotes (4)
"It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't offer immunity the way that the government can."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
Quote #1
"there are a number of witnesses who... the government clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony we heard."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
Quote #2
"And I won't name names if we don't want to do that. But I think we probably know who we're talking about here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
Quote #3
"had we tried to call that witness or those witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights."Source
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,669 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 95 2814
LCIAMAX2ps
LCIAMAX2ps
1 that we intended to call as a witness.
2 THE COURT: There was a lawyer letter indicating that
3 they had received a subpoena and they intended to invoke. I
4 asked many, many times if there was an application with respect
5 to it. I never got one. So I'm not sure how to think of that.
6 It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't
7 offer immunity the way that the government can. That's true in
8 every case. This charge is quite standard, though standardly
9 objected to, but I don't know that I see anything in this case
10 that would distinguish its application based on what you've
11 just indicated.
12 MR. EVERDELL: In addition to what I had just
13 indicated, just for purpose of completeness, there are a number
14 of witnesses who, based on the witness testimony in this case,
15 there would be people who the government -- who we normally may
16 have considered calling as a witness but who the government
17 clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony
18 we heard. And I won't name names if we don't want to do that.
19 But I think we probably know who we're talking about here. And
20 that is, you know, had we tried to call that witness or those
21 witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth
22 Amendment rights. In fact, as some of them -- one of them was
23 not called by the government and would have had to have been
24 given statutory immunity or granted immunity to be able to
25 testify, by the government, if they had decided to call them.
2 THE COURT: There was a lawyer letter indicating that
3 they had received a subpoena and they intended to invoke. I
4 asked many, many times if there was an application with respect
5 to it. I never got one. So I'm not sure how to think of that.
6 It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't
7 offer immunity the way that the government can. That's true in
8 every case. This charge is quite standard, though standardly
9 objected to, but I don't know that I see anything in this case
10 that would distinguish its application based on what you've
11 just indicated.
12 MR. EVERDELL: In addition to what I had just
13 indicated, just for purpose of completeness, there are a number
14 of witnesses who, based on the witness testimony in this case,
15 there would be people who the government -- who we normally may
16 have considered calling as a witness but who the government
17 clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony
18 we heard. And I won't name names if we don't want to do that.
19 But I think we probably know who we're talking about here. And
20 that is, you know, had we tried to call that witness or those
21 witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth
22 Amendment rights. In fact, as some of them -- one of them was
23 not called by the government and would have had to have been
24 given statutory immunity or granted immunity to be able to
25 testify, by the government, if they had decided to call them.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017002
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document