Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York denied the DOJ’s request to unseal Ghislaine Maxwell, an associate of Jeffrey Epstein’s, grand jury documents.
Engelmayer previously told the DOJ to address the following factors before he made his final decision:
In short, Englemayer chose not to release the information because the documents show nothing new and Maxwell is appealing her conviction.
Englemayer decided that releasing the documents would not show the public any new information, therefore not meeting the “special circumstances” requirement:
The Court therefore denies the Government’s motion to unseal at the threshold. Contrary to the Government’s depiction, the Maxwell grand jury testimony is not a matter of significant historical or public interest. Far from it. It consists of garden-variety summary testimony by two law enforcement agents. And the information it contains is already almost entirely a matter of longstanding public record, principally as a result of live testimony by percipient witnesses at the 2021 Maxwell trial.
Englemayer also did not see the release a matter of “significant hostorical or public interest” for the same reason.
“Because the secondhand testimony at issue here is redundant of the public-record trial testimony of firsthand witnesses, and thus is not of significant historical or public interest, there is arguably no charter for even undertaking the In re Craig inquiry,” wrote Englemayer.
In re Craig stems from a case where a doctoral candidate requested the grand jury documents from Harry Dexter White, a former Assistant Secretary of Treasury accused of being a communist spy in 1948.
It also did not help that Maxwell opposed releasing the grand jury documents, mainly because “her case remains on direct appeal.”
The DOJ also did not specify what information it sought for disclosure.
In other words, the DOJ submitted a vague request:
Here, the Government does not seek tailored disclosure of discrete items within a grand jury record. Nor does it seek leave to disseminate grand jury materials to a specified audience. It seeks disclosure to the public at large of the entire proceedings before the Maxwell grand jury, subject only to redactions aimed at protecting privacy.This factor weighs against unsealing. The Government has identified no information of consequence within the grand jury record that is not already public. And, under In re Craig, the blanket quality of the motion to unseal weighs against unsealing.
Then there’s the time factor. In 1997, the doctoral student asked for grand jury testimony that took place in 1948.
Englemayer pointed out that a grand jury indicted Maxwell five years ago, her trial took place fours ago, and she’s appealing her conviction. Plus, many of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims are still alive.
Then Englemayer examined the letters from Maxwell’s victims. They mostly agree with the release of the testimonies along with anything related to Epstein and Maxwell as long as they all redact information “to protect identities and privacy.”
Englemayer admitted the factor regarding the victims “favors unsealing” because they think unsealing the documents would lead to new information.
But as we know, Englemayer said the testimonies would not reveal new information.
“Had the Government’s motion made clear that these records are redundant of the evidence at Maxwell’s public trial, the victims’ responses to the motion to unseal might well have been different,” Englemayer concluded.
Um, why don’t you ask them before you assume what they *might* feel or think?
The only factor I agree on is the timing and appeal. Maxwell, despite her actions, deserves a fair appeal. Plus, most everyone is still alive, including those on the grand jury and law enforcement.
The government would redact names but it has become easy to identify people.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY