Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From:
To:
(US %NYS)"
Cc:
(USANYS)"
USANYS •
SANYS
USANYS
[=.
SANYS
USANYS)"
USANYS
USANYS)"
(USANYS) 1"
SANYS
Yes, I highlighted the huge volume of discovery for Maxwell when I spoke with
this morning. That volume was a
significant driver in our team's decision to request that she receive so much time to review her discovery. Based on my
read of the transcript from this morning's Rivera conference, it sounds like Rivera is not even using all the time he has
now. By contrast, my understanding is that Maxwell is using up the full time she has been given.
From:
(USANYS)
To:
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
Cc:
>;
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
);
(USANYS) 1
(USANYS)
I'd also look into potential differences in the volume of discovery. No idea what your case entails, MEI but in Maxwell
we have produced truly enormous volumes of material (we seized 60 some devices during the investigation, for example,
in addition to an entire FBI file from the prior Florida investigation...) that may explain some of this.
From:
(USANYS)
To:
(USANYS)<
(USANYS)
(USANYS) <
(USANYS)
•
<
(USANYS)
Cc:
4
4
>
(USANYS) <
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS) 1
Thanks,
Can you keep me posted on what we think will be the substance of the draft declaration when you know
(that is, before we are submitting anything on 12/31)? And how much of this is attributable to differences between MCC
and MDC, as well as specific differences in their housing situations?
From:
(USANYS).ca
EFTA00015972
To:
(USANYS)
;-(USANYS)
(USANYS)
(USANYS) <
I)
).;
>;
( USANYS)
4
Cc:
(USANYS)
>,
(USANYS)
4
;
(USANYS)
>;
(USANYS)
4
>;
(USANYS) 1
All:
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent issue that's surfaced in United States v. Rivera et al., a sex
trafficking case pending before Judge Engelmayer. As I'll describe in more detail below, Judge
Engelmayer has asked us to submit a declaration from the BOP explaining why the discovery and
counsel access accommodations provided to Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at the MDC outside the
general population) cannot be extended to Justin Rivera (detained at the MCC in the general
population).
Justin Rivera was charged in February 2019 with sex trafficking conspiracy. He's been detained at the
MCC since April 2019 on consent (he's also serving a state sentence). His trial, which was originally
scheduled for April 2019, is expected to start on February 16, 2020. In July 2020, he had new counsel
appointed, citing an irreconcilable breakdown with his former counsel.
Since this fall, Judge Engelmayer has become increasingly frustrated with the MCC's treatment of
Rivera. In particular, he's cited their failure to provide Rivera with adequate accommodations to
review discovery and meet with his lawyers, who refuse to visit Rivera at the MCC for personal health
concerns. We have two court orders in place to address these issues: (0 a laptop order, which requires
the MCC to provide Rivera access to a laptop for three hours per day; and (2) a videoconference order,
which requires the MCC to make available four hours of videoconferencing each week, in addition to
any telephone or videoconference calls obtained through the Federal Defenders.
At the moment, there's not a concern, at least from Judge Engelmayer, that the amount of time Rivera
has for videoconferences and electronic discovery review is insufficient for trial preparation, although
defense counsel has stated that they may request more time in the future. However, in a letter last
night and during a court conference this morning (transcript attached), defense counsel cited the
accommodations that the MDC has provided to Maxwell, describing them as "strikingly different and
far superior" to those afforded to Rivera. Defense counsel further suggested that Rivera was being
treated differently on account of his race, gender and class. Judge Engelmayer stated that the
disparity in arress "jumped off the page" and that the optics were "terrible," and asked us to explain
the rationale for the differing treatment. After conferring with
and
before
our conference, we explained our understanding that the disparity comes down to the fact that
Maxwell and Rivera have very different housing situations, with Maxwell's situation being more
amenable to greater access to electronic discovery review and legal visits.
Judge Engelmayer asked us to submit a declaration, from an appropriate person at the BOP,
explaining in more detail why the accommodations provided to Maxwell cannot be extended to Rivera.
Based on the recent bail opposition in the Maxwell case, I believe the differences in counsel/discovery
access are as follows:
Accommodation
Maxwell
Rivera
EFTA00015973
Review of electronic
discovery (NB: each
defendant has laptop access)
13 hours per day/7 days per
week (91 hours total)
3 hours per day/7 days per
week (21 hours total)
Counsel visits (by video)
3 hours per day/5 days per
week (15 hours total)
Four hours per week (plus an
additional two hours
scheduled through the
Federal Defenders) (6 hours
total)
Weekend legal calls
As needed
Not available
The declaration is due by December 31. Because Judge Engelmayer's request implicates at least two
criminal cases, and potentially the ongoing civil litigation with the MCC, we wanted to make sure that
you were all aware of this issue. We are also happy to set up a call to discuss this further. In the
meantime, we are working with
to identify the appropriate declarant and draft an
explanation for the Court.
Best,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York NY 10007
Tel:
EFTA00015974