mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001795.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "64",
    "date": "10/14/2020",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 6 COHEN & GRESSER LLP Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com October 14, 2020 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in opposition to the government's October 6, 2020 letter requesting the Court's permission to delay the disclosure of photographs and documents relating to certain alleged victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein (the \"Materials\"), pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Dkt. 60). The government's request should be denied for two reasons. First, it is clear from the government's letter that the Materials pertain to individuals who claim to have been \"sexually abused by [Jeffrey] Epstein\" (id. at 2), but who have not accused Ms. Maxwell of participating in or facilitating that conduct in any way. Accordingly, the Materials identifying these witnesses and their prior statements are exculpatory evidence, which must be disclosed pursuant to the government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny.1 Second, the Court should order the government to disclose the Materials under Rule 16 because the Materials are \"material to preparing the defense\" and the government has not shown good cause to delay production of the Materials under Rule 16(d)(1). 1 We note that yesterday we sent the government a letter making specific Brady requests, including \"[a]ny statements or written communications made by any witness who has alleged that she was sexually abused or assaulted by Mr. Epstein, but has not alleged that Ms. Maxwell participated in, was involved in, or facilitated the alleged sexual abuse.\" DOJ-OGR-00001795",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "October 14, 2020",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in opposition to the government's October 6, 2020 letter requesting the Court's permission to delay the disclosure of photographs and documents relating to certain alleged victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein (the \"Materials\"), pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Dkt. 60). The government's request should be denied for two reasons.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, it is clear from the government's letter that the Materials pertain to individuals who claim to have been \"sexually abused by [Jeffrey] Epstein\" (id. at 2), but who have not accused Ms. Maxwell of participating in or facilitating that conduct in any way. Accordingly, the Materials identifying these witnesses and their prior statements are exculpatory evidence, which must be disclosed pursuant to the government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny.1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the Court should order the government to disclose the Materials under Rule 16 because the Materials are \"material to preparing the defense\" and the government has not shown good cause to delay production of the Materials under Rule 16(d)(1).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 We note that yesterday we sent the government a letter making specific Brady requests, including \"[a]ny statements or written communications made by any witness who has alleged that she was sexually abused or assaulted by Mr. Epstein, but has not alleged that Ms. Maxwell participated in, was involved in, or facilitated the alleged sexual abuse.\"",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001795",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Christian R. Everdell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "NY",
      "United States Courthouse",
      "40 Foley Square"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 14, 2020",
      "October 6, 2020",
      "1963"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 64",
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. 60",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001795"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a court case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and contains legal terminology and references to specific court rules and cases. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}