Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • x GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREM

RICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • x GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver Phone: Ch

MN) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • x GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Jeffrey S. Pag

m offering testimony from Accuser 4 identifying Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any crime. Any in-court iden

ine Maxwell 4 EFTA00090472 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell 's Motion to Suppress Identification with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: U.S

UMENT 2 i EFTA00090467 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES Cases Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) 2, 3 Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) 2, 3 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 3 Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) 2, 3 Stovall v. Demo, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) 2 United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Denver Phone: Christian R. Eve

INE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffr

ruling on the admissibility for two weeks. 15 Ms. Maxwell reiterates her re, uest to defer III. THIS COUR

s, 218 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1955) 5 Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) 38 People v. Davis, 423 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) 39 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 34 Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397 (2d Cir.1996) 41 Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 198

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S S

MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00097331 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The

ably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S S

ey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin • er Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00097649 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The

ably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S S

57-7600 Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00100287 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The

ably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FI

ork, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00018997 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE

ES iii TABLE OF EXHIBITS Factual Background 1 Argument 1 I. The Government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression 1 A. Maxwell has standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails 5 II. The Government's violation of M

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2