Lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell asked a judge to stop her accusers from using evidence in the criminal case to boost civil lawsuits by posting materials to the internet.
The lawyers say attorneys for women who claim Maxwell recruited and abused them should be subject to the same secrecy rules as prosecutors and Maxwell’s defense lawyers.
The lawyers, though, said it was one topic that prosecutors and defense lawyers for the British woman could not agree on as they composed a proposed agreement to keep evidence secret prior to a trial scheduled in Manhattan federal court for July 2021.
Maxwell, 58, who has been incarcerated without bail since her arrest several weeks ago, has pleaded not guilty to charges that she recruited and aided the abuse of three girls by Epstein in the 1990s.
Epstein committed suicide in a Manhattan lockup last August as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges related to the abuse of women and girls in Manhattan and Florida in the early 2000s.
The proposed order, submitted to a judge Monday, would prevent prosecutors and Maxwell’s lawyers from releasing any information to the internet or elsewhere, including “nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals”.
The joint protective order is routine in sex abuse cases.
But the lawyers said in a letter to the judge that prosecutors have refused to agree that witnesses in the trial and their lawyers should be subject to the secrecy rules.
Maxwell’s lawyers cited current civil litigation between Maxwell and “many of the government’s potential witnesses”, saying numerous potential witnesses and their lawyers have already publicly commented about the case.
“There is a substantial concern that these individuals will seek to use discovery materials to support their civil cases and future public statements,” the lawyers wrote.
neoarchaic on July 28th, 2020 at 02:12 UTC »
I wonder if this will be a televised trial or at least open to journalist
averagebrowncoat on July 28th, 2020 at 00:52 UTC »
Your honor, I object!
And why is that?
Because it's devastating to my case!
Overruled.
Good call!
sanesociopath on July 28th, 2020 at 00:41 UTC »
I assumed this was about trying to insure they can get an impartial jury when the time for the trial comes (which would be a reasonable request) But instead they are requesting it for the civil suits so I'm curious what the prosecutions response is going to be (article says tomorrow they will make one) and how a judge will rule