673.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 3
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.9240138942369401
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document673 Filed 06/24/22 Pagelof3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 June 24, 2022 By ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Sitting by Designation United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court’s Order directing the Government to respond to the defendant’s objections and redaction requests (Dkt. No. 671). The six individuals demonstrated at trial to be directly and proximately harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct are Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa. Of these victims, the Government has received statements from Kate, Annie, and Virginia, to which the defendant has not objected except as to limited redactions, addressed below.! Accordingly, these ' The defendant has provided the Court with these letters and its proposed redactions. The Government understands that Kate and Annie plan to attend the sentencing, and the remaining victims do not. 1 DOJ-OGR-00010660
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document673 Filed 06/24/22 Page2of3 victims have a right to be heard in connection with sentencing under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (a)(4). With respect to all other victim impact statements, which were not solicited by the Government, the Government is not asking the Court to make any factual findings about these individuals at sentencing or to consider these statements when weighing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, in light of the Court’s “largely unlimited” discretion “as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come,” United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up), the Court may accept the…
Open in the interactive archive →