Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 415 views

    Maxwell Co-Conspirators Ruling

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Dolak
    The court ordered the government to disclose the identities of unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment. The court found that the government waived its objection to providing these identities by not raising the objection earlier. Additionally, the long time period of the alleged conspiracies increased the risk of surprise to the defendant. The government did not demonstrate potential dangers to co-conspirators or investigations from disclosure. Therefore, disclosure was required to allow adequate preparation of defenses and avoid trial delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Maxwell Co-Conspirators Ruling

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Dolak
    415 views3 pages
    The court ordered the government to disclose the identities of unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment. The court found that the government waived its objection to providing these identities by not raising the objection earlier. Additionally, the long time period of the alleged conspiracies increased the risk of surprise to the defendant. The government did not demonstrate potential dangers to co-conspirators or investigations from disclosure. Therefore, disclosure was required to allow adequate preparation of defenses and avoid trial delays.

    Original Description:

    Maxwell Co-Conspirators Ruling

    Original Title

    Maxwell Co-Conspirators Ruling

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court ordered the government to disclose the identities of unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment. The court found that the government waived its objection to providing these identities by not raising the objection earlier. Additionally, the long time period of the alleged conspiracies increased the risk of surprise to the defendant. The government did not demonstrate potential dangers to co-conspirators or investigations from disclosure. Therefore, disclosure was required to allow adequate preparation of defenses and avoid trial delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    415 views3 pages

    Maxwell Co-Conspirators Ruling

    Uploaded by

    Kevin Dolak
    The court ordered the government to disclose the identities of unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment. The court found that the government waived its objection to providing these identities by not raising the objection earlier. Additionally, the long time period of the alleged conspiracies increased the risk of surprise to the defendant. The government did not demonstrate potential dangers to co-conspirators or investigations from disclosure. Therefore, disclosure was required to allow adequate preparation of defenses and avoid trial delays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 335 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    9/3/21
    United States of America,

    –v–
    20-CR-330 (AJN)
    Ghislaine Maxwell,
    ORDER
    Defendant.

    ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

    Defendant seeks the Government’s “disclosure of the identities of the unnamed co-

    conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment.” Dkt. No. 331 at 1. In its August 13 Opinion &

    Order, this Court noted that the Government had not objected to Defendant’s two prior requests

    that the Government identify the unnamed co-conspirators. Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1; see also Dkt.

    No. 331 at 1. On August 18, 2021, the Government filed a letter stating that it “objects to any

    requirement that it provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars

    or otherwise . . . absent further order of the Court.” Dkt. No. 320 at 1. The Court concludes that

    the Government’s objection comes too late as the Government had multiple opportunities to raise

    its objection before this Court issued its opinion. For this and the foregoing reasons, the Court

    concludes that at the same time that the Government discloses Jencks Act materials, the

    Government must also disclose to the Defendant the identities of all unnamed co-conspirators

    alleged in the S2 indictment to whom it will refer at trial. See United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F.

    Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

    Even if the Court were to find that the Government had not waived its objection, it would

    find unpersuasive the Government’s justifications for withholding this information. “In

    considering whether to grant a request for identification of unnamed co-conspirators, ‘the Court

    1
    Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 335 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3

    must balance the risk of surprise to the defendant, which is enhanced if ‘there are a large number

    of co-conspirators and a long-running conspiracy’ with legitimate law enforcement concerns,

    such as the potential danger to co-conspirators and the risk of compromising continuing

    investigations.’” United States v. Akhavan, No. S3 20-CR-188(JSR), 2020 WL 2555333, at *2

    (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020) (quoting United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp. 3d 287, 303

    (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

    The conspiracies charged are long-running, increasing the risk of surprise to the

    Defendant. See Akhavan, 2020 WL 2555333, at *2. Count Three charges Maxwell with a

    conspiracy running from 1994 to 2004 and Count Five charges a conspiracy running from 2001

    to 2004. Dkt. No. 187 ¶¶ 17, 23. And as the Court has previously found, Maxwell is likely able

    to determine the names of the alleged victims described in the Indictment due to the

    Government’s extensive discovery, see Dkt. No. 207 at 20; however, this logic does not

    necessarily extend to the identities of alleged co-conspirators. See Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d at

    241.

    The Government argues that there is no risk of surprise because “it currently intends” to

    introduce the alleged co-conspirator statements of only two individuals. Dkt. No. 320 at 2. At

    the same time, however, the Government proffers that it “may change its view as it prepares for

    trial.” Dkt. No. 320 at 2. The Court thus finds the Government’s reassurance hollow and

    insufficient to ensure that the Defendant may adequately prepare her defenses. See Pinto-

    Thomas, 352 F. Supp. 3d at 301–02.

    Moreover, the Government has not alleged that disclosure here would create “potential

    danger to co-conspirators” or risk “compromising continuing investigations.” See Akhavan,

    2020 WL 2555333, at *2. It merely argues that disclosing the identities risks “harm to the

    2
    Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 335 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3

    Government from restricting its proof at trial.” Dkt. No. 320 at 3. The Government provides no

    explanation for this purported harm and none is apparent to the Court. Thus, the Court finds that

    this concern alone does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need

    for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay.

    In light of the interests discussed above and consistent with other courts that have required

    disclosure of co-conspirator identities to the defense, the Court will require the Government to

    disclose the identities of any unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the

    conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment whom the Government intends to refer to at trial.

    Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that at the same time that the Government discloses

    Jencks Act material, the Government shall also disclose to the defense the identities of any

    unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2

    indictment to whom the Government will refer at trial. The Government is FURTHER

    ORDERED to disclose all co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than

    October 11, as consistent with this Court’s scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1.

    SO ORDERED.

    Dated: September 3, 2021


    New York, New York ____________________________________
    ALISON J. NATHAN
    United States District Judge

    You might also like