705.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 12
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.8513269648193377
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 705 Cy HA. D DON MORGAN FOREMAN May 12, 2021 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Filed 07/12/22 Page1of12 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.c Jeffrey Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com [email protected] Re: | Response to Government Letters dated May 4, and May 6, 2021 Regarding F.R. Crim. P. 17(c) Subpoena, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan, On March 15, 2021, Ms. Maxwell asked the Court to issue a F.R.Crim.P. 17(c)(3) subpoena for production of evidence controlled by Boies, Schiller, and Flexner (“BSF”) lawyers working with the government on behalf of alleged (now-adult) witnesses. In her ex-parte application, Ms. Maxwell provided reasons for requesting certain items of evidence, including that the government either failed to secure the evidence or refused to produce it to Ms. Maxwell; she also disclosed theories related to her defense, strategy, and work product. After considering the application and BSF’s response, the Court invited comment from the government regarding subpoenaed items 9 (a journal), 10 (boots), and 11(photographs). Specifically, the Court directed the government “to notify the Court of its views as to Requests 9 through 11.” Dkt. 252. The government’s position is consistent with its general approach to evidence in this case which is to blindly accept information it considers unfavorable to Ms. Maxwell, begrudgingly DOJ-OGR-00011241
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 705 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of12 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan May 12, 2021 Page 2 produce Brady material with various disclaimers such as “although the government is not obligated to do so” (Dkt. 269 pp. 8, 9), and obfuscate the importance of legitimate defense requests for discovery. The government repeatedly demonstrates that it views this process not as a s…
Open in the interactive archive →