Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 27 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 7
iy Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.c
Jeffrey Pagliuca
HUA D DON
MOORS 150 East 10th Avenue
FOREMAN Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
[email protected]
July 21, 2020
VIA ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Souther District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Local Criminal Rule 23.1
Dear Judge Nathan,
On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request that the Court enter an
order prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial
statements concerning this case. Although Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, the Government,
its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial
to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the
right to an impartial jury. This fundamental guarantee is part of a criminal defendant’s basic right
to a fair trial, which requires that a defendant must be judged by a jury of her peers based on
evidence presented at trial, not in the media. The Court, to safeguard the due process rights of the
accused, has “an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial
publicity.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). This District has given effect
to this Sixth Amendment right through Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell
requests that the Court exercise its express power under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) and enter
an Order requiring compliance with that rule to prevent further unwarranted and prejudicial
pretrial publicity by the Government, its agents, and lawyers for alleged witnesses.
Legal Standard
More than fifty years ago, warning of the danger of pretrial publicity to fair trials, the
Supreme Court directed trial judges to take “such steps by rule and regulation that will protect
their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense,
the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the
court should be permitted to frustrate its function.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363
(1966) (emphasis added).
DOJ-OGR-00001635