All data sourced from public U.S. government records. Appearance of any name does NOT imply guilt or wrongdoing. Full disclaimer →
The Government submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan stating they won't use certain materials subject to suppression motions in their case-in-chief at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, but reserves the right to use them if the defense puts these materials at issue or if the defendant testifies. The Government opposes the suppression motions and argues that even if materials are suppressed, they can still be used for impeachment or other permissible purposes under the Rules of Evidence.
Source
DOJ
Release Date
—
Pages
3
Jurisdiction
—
Case
227
5 individuals identified
Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant): This document is significant because it reveals the Government's position on using potentially suppressed materials at trial and their intention not to use them in their case-in-chief, while reserving the right to use them under certain circumstances.
Alison Moe (Assistant United States Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the Government's position on using potentially suppressed materials at trial and their intention not to use them in their case-in-chief, while reserving the right to use them under certain circumstances.
Full-Text Search — Phase 2
In-document keyword search is coming when OCR/text ingestion is complete.
Maurene Comey (Assistant United States Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the Government's position on using potentially suppressed materials at trial and their intention not to use them in their case-in-chief, while reserving the right to use them under certain circumstances.
Andrew Rohrbach (Assistant United States Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the Government's position on using potentially suppressed materials at trial and their intention not to use them in their case-in-chief, while reserving the right to use them under certain circumstances.
Audrey Strauss (United States Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the Government's position on using potentially suppressed materials at trial and their intention not to use them in their case-in-chief, while reserving the right to use them under certain circumstances.