Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00098449DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 309 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 3

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00098449
Pages
3
Persons
12
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 309 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 1, 2021 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan 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, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to bring to the Court's attention an opinion piece (the "Op-Ed") published yesterday in the New York Daily News, which was authored by David Markus, Esq., who represents the defendant in connection with this case. Mr. Markus's statements in the Op-Ed were in violation of Local Rule 23.1, which contains provisions relating to extrajudicial public statements by attorneys. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the Government respectfully requests t

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 309 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 1, 2021 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan 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, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to bring to the Court's attention an opinion piece (the "Op-Ed") published yesterday in the New York Daily News, which was authored by David Markus, Esq., who represents the defendant in connection with this case. Mr. Markus's statements in the Op-Ed were in violation of Local Rule 23.1, which contains provisions relating to extrajudicial public statements by attorneys. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the Government respectfully requests that the Court order Mr. Markus to comply with Local Rule 23.1. A. Mr. Markus's Statements to the Media David Markus represents the defendant in connection with appellate matters in this case. In particular, Mr. Markus has handled the defendant's bail appeals in this case, including an argument on her behalf in the Second Circuit. As the Court may recall, on April 14, 2021, Mr. Markus emailed Chambers requesting permission to bring electronics to the courthouse to attend the defendant's arraignment on the superseding indictment. The Court informed Mr. Markus that he would need to file a notice of appearance before making such an application to the Court. Mr. Markus did not file a notice of appearance, but he attended the arraignment and spoke to members of the media thereafter.' I See Stephen Rex Brown, Ghislaine Marvell Makes First Court Appearance, N.Y. Daily News (Apr. 23, 2021), http :thvww.nydailynews.corninew-york/ny-ghislaine-mtucwell-arraignment-20210423- b3aza5eh7bddna7r247px2yb7e-story.html (quoting Mr. Markus, speaking outside the courthouse following the defendant's arraignment and identifying him as "her attorney"). EFTA00098449 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 309 Filed 07/01/21 Page 2 of 3 Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 1, 2021 Page 2 Mr. Markus has made multiple statements to the media in the past few months.2 On May II, 2021, the Government emailed the defendant's counsel of record in this case and expressed concern about Mr. Markus's statements, citing Local Rule 23.1. Defense counsel did not respond. Most recently, on June 30, 2021, Mr. Markus authored an Op-Ed in the New York Daily News.3 The Op-Ed compared the defendant to Bill Cosby and argued that this case should be dismissed in the wake of Mr. Cosby's release from prison. The Op-Ed claims that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement is binding in this District, but that "[t]he trial court, just like the trial court and intermediate appellate court in Cosby's case, has agreed to let the government out of its deal." The Op-Ed further claims that this case is "extremely weak" and asserts that "[a] jury should reject those flimsy and stale charges." The Op-Ed also identifies Mr. Markus as "Maxwell's appellate counsel." Other news outlets have subsequently issued articles regarding the Op-Ed.4 B. Relief Is Warranted Under Local Rule 23.1 Local Rule 23.1 generally prohibits extrajudicial statements of opinion that a reasonable person would expect to create "a substantial likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(a). The Rule further provides, in relevant part, that statements of "opinion as to the accused's guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case" are among those that "presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(d)(7). The Rule applies to all statements made by lawyers "in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(a). Furthermore, the Rule provides that the Court "may issue a special order governing such matters as extrajudicial statements by parties and witnesses likely to interfere with the rights of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury ...." SDNY Local Rule 23.1(h). Mr. Markus is plainly governed by Local Rule 23.1, because he is not only "associated" with this criminal case, but he is also counsel of record in the defendant's appeals in connection with this matter. Mr. Markus's comments to the media—most egregiously, the Op-Ed—were clearly in violation of Local Rule 23.1. Not only did his statements directly comment on the merits of this case, but they did so in a manner designed to appeal directly to the pool of potential jurors 2 See Ben Feuerherd, Feds Detail Ghislaine Maxwell's 'Enhanced Security Schedule' In Prison, N.Y. Post (May 5, 2021), https://nypost.com/2021/05/05/ghislaine-maxwell-on-enhanced-security-schedule-lockup-feds/ (quoting Mr. Markus); David Oscar Markus, Ghislaine Maxwell Should Be Released: She Should Await Her Trial Outside Confinement, N.Y. Daily News (Feb. 24, 2021), https:thvww.nydailynews.corn/opinion/nroped-ghislaine-maxwell- should-be-released-20210224-xocbriloc25exfibqbaf6fp76he-story.html (Op-Ed authored by Mr. Markus). 3 See David Oscar Markus, Bill Cosby is Free; Ghislaine Maxwell Should Be, Too, N.Y. Daily News (June 30, 2021), http://ww.w.nydailynews.corn/opinioniny-oped-cosby-maxwell-free-20210630-gqIcsn6yczaivp5h7g7x731fzu- story.html (Op-Ed authored by Mr. Markus). 4 See Louis Casiano, Bill Cosby Ruling Should be Used to Free Ghislaine Maxwell, Her Lawyer says, Fox News (July 1, 2021), httpsJ/www.foxnews.com/usibill-cosby-free-ghislaine-maxwell; Daniel Villarreal, Bill Cosby Ruling Shows Why Ghislaine Maxwell Should Be Freed, Her Lawyer Says, Newsweek (June 30, 2021), https://www.newsweek.com/bill-cosby-ruling-shows-why-ghislaine-maxwell-should-freed-her-lawyer-says- 1605828. EFTA00098450 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 309 Filed 07/01/21 Page 3 of 3 Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 1, 2021 Page 3 in this case: the Op-Ed was published in a local newspaper, and it contained an express overture to jurors, discussing the verdict defense counsel wishes jurors to reach in this case. What is more, the Op-Ed falsely suggested to potential jurors that this prosecution is barred by a non-prosecution agreement—a legal contention this Court has considered and squarely rejected. This Court has already entered an Order—at the request of the defendant—indicating the Court's expectation that "all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1." (Dkt. No. 28). Mr. Markus's continued comments are in violation of that Order, are inappropriate, and are likely to interfere with the Court's ability to conduct a fair trial with an impartial jury in this case. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court issue an order pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(h) directed specifically to Mr. Markus and instructing him to comply with Local Rule 23.1. Respectfully submitted, AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney By: Is Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 Cc: Christian Everdell, Esq. (by ECF) Mark Cohen, Esq. (by ECF) Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. (by ECF) Laura Menninger, Esq. (by ECF) Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. (by ECF) David Markus, Esq. (by email) EFTA00098451

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00023532

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9

Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com tgee@hmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two deposition transcripts were designated "Confidential" and subject to the protection of the Protective Order. Both transcripts ended up in the hands of the government, which used them to bring an indictment against Ms. Maxwell, charging her with, among other things, perjury in her deposition testimony. This is a serious violation

209p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio I. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 October 20, 2020 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Christian Everdell, Esq. Mark Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Counsel: In recognition of the Government's ongoing discovery obligations, today we are producing copies of the materials listed in the below index, which materials are stamped with control numbers SDNY_GM_00328070 through SDNY_GM_00356148. The password for the drive is "USAOsdnyl!". The materials are available for pickup at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan. Please note that both this l

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

k7e2MaxC kjc

k7e2MaxC kjc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Before: New York, N.Y. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) x Teleconference Arraignment Bail Hearing July 14, 2020 3:05 p.m. HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge APPEARANCES AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: Assistant United States Attorneys COHEN & GRESSER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MARK S. COHEN CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA LAURA A. MENNINGER SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00066216 k7e2MaxC kjc THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Nathan presiding. This is United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 330. I will tak

91p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 21-58. Document 89-1, 05/17/2021, 3102450, Pagel of 14

Case 21-58. Document 89-1, 05/17/2021, 3102450, Pagel of 14 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857.8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Num 21-770/21-58 ber(s): Caption [use short Ski Motion for: Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release Set forth below precise. complete statement of relief sought: Ghislaine Maxwell renews her motion for pretrial release or in the alternative, remand for an evidentiary hearing. United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell MOVING PARTY: Ghislaine Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America 9Plaintiff ElDelendant ZAppellant/Petkioner nAppeUee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: David Oscar Markus Markus/Moss PLLC OPPOSING ATTORNEY: , AUSA [name of attorney, with firm address, phone number and e-mail) United States Attorney's Office, So. Dist. of NY 40 NW Third Street, PH 1, Miami, Florida 33128 One Saint Andrew's Plaza, New York

34p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York By Electronic Mail Christian Everdell, Esq. Mark Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Gresser LLP New York, NY 10022 Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. Haddon Mor an and Foreman, P.C. Denver, CO 80203 Dear Counsel: The Si!lo J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 January 8, 2021 Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) We write in response to your letter of December 28, 2020, in which you request a bill of particulars in the above-captioned matter. As set forth herein, the Government does not intend to provide further particulars because under the well-established law of this Circuit it has no obligation to do so. To the contrary, and as you are aware, the Government outlined its charges against your client in a detailed speaking superseding indictment (the "Indictment")

4p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.