Case#: 2020r00008 Document#: 22438 Filed#: 10/22/2021 Page#: 4 of 9
LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that her legal papers are safe and believes that the confidentiality required to prepare her defense for trial has been irreparably breached. She is justifiably concerned that her defense documents and their contents have been improperly reviewed and disseminated. The fact that the guards did not confront counsel but chose to confiscate legal documents after Ms. Maxwell's lawyers left the visiting area further validates her suspicion and that of her counsel. In addition, Ms. Maxwell is fearful that she will be subject to retaliation, baseless allegations, and unwarranted and unprovoked discipline.
Ms. Maxwell is an indicted pre-trial detainee who has asserted her right to counsel. Once the right to counsel has attached and is asserted, as is the case here, the government must honor it. This means more than that the government "cannot prevent the accused from obtaining the assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment also imposes on the government an affirmative obligation to respect and preserve the accused's choice to seek this assistance." Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170-71 (1985).
The actions by the MDC guards violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Without any justifiable cause they seized and inspected legal materials, failed to identify the materials seized, and withheld the materials for improper purposes. Ms. Maxwell does not know if the materials were duplicated in some fashion, i.e., photocopied, scanned, or photographed. She does not know whether the MDC plans to give any of these privileged and confidential materials or the information contained therein to the prosecution or leak them to the press. And, given the prior treatment of Ms. Maxwell's HIPPA-protected medical information, these concerns are warranted.
Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order directing that the MDC, through its legal counsel and/or warden, to provide to Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, only, the following information:
- the identity of the person or persons who seized the legal material;
- an inventory of the items seized;
- a statement, subject to penalty of perjury, regarding whether the materials were duplicated in any fashion; and
- whether any disciplinary or corrective action was taken against any of the offending guards.
Very truly yours,
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
Encs.
cc: All counsel of record
DOJ-OGR-00004030
Full Text
Case#: 2020r00008 Document#: 22438 Filed#: 10/22/2021 Page#: 4 of 9
LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that her legal papers are safe and believes that the confidentiality required to prepare her defense for trial has been irreparably breached. She is justifiably concerned that her defense documents and their contents have been improperly reviewed and disseminated. The fact that the guards did not confront counsel but chose to confiscate legal documents after Ms. Maxwell's lawyers left the visiting area further validates her suspicion and that of her counsel. In addition, Ms. Maxwell is fearful that she will be subject to retaliation, baseless allegations, and unwarranted and unprovoked discipline.
Ms. Maxwell is an indicted pre-trial detainee who has asserted her right to counsel. Once the right to counsel has attached and is asserted, as is the case here, the government must honor it. This means more than that the government "cannot prevent the accused from obtaining the assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment also imposes on the government an affirmative obligation to respect and preserve the accused's choice to seek this assistance." Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170-71 (1985).
The actions by the MDC guards violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Without any justifiable cause they seized and inspected legal materials, failed to identify the materials seized, and withheld the materials for improper purposes. Ms. Maxwell does not know if the materials were duplicated in some fashion, i.e., photocopied, scanned, or photographed. She does not know whether the MDC plans to give any of these privileged and confidential materials or the information contained therein to the prosecution or leak them to the press. And, given the prior treatment of Ms. Maxwell's HIPPA-protected medical information, these concerns are warranted.
Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order directing that the MDC, through its legal counsel and/or warden, to provide to Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, only, the following information:
- the identity of the person or persons who seized the legal material;
- an inventory of the items seized;
- a statement, subject to penalty of perjury, regarding whether the materials were duplicated in any fashion; and
- whether any disciplinary or corrective action was taken against any of the offending guards.
Very truly yours,
BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
Encs.
cc: All counsel of record
DOJ-OGR-00004030
--- PAGE BREAK ---
provided to us by the government, the government intends to introduce, through the medical examiner, photographs of these bedsores. So, I think that expert testimony, by itself, sufficiently will describe the bedsores that Mr. Jones was suffering at the time of his death.
MR. HOBSON: To be clear of what photographs we are introducing, we are not introducing the most graphic pictures of the bedsores. In fact, we were concerned in introducing some of the pictures that they wouldn't fully show how serious the bedsores were but we are not going to be putting in the most graphic pictures.
THE COURT: What I am going to allow is you will have some permission to lead with respect to the description of the injuries and sores. It's going to be brief and extraction of facts that you need that is not cumulative with medical testimony and evidence that's coming in. We will see how it goes but I am -- I intend to be extremely cautious given that this is non-expert medical testimony coming from a relative. So, the prospect of prejudice and emotion and sympathy is real and I'm not going to let it happen.
MR. HOBSON: Yes, your Honor. We understand.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. DeMARCO: No thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: OK. Any word, Ms. Williams?
(Discussion off record)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011130
--- PAGE BREAK ---
Case No.: 2020r00008
Document No.: 61908
Filed: 11/02/2020
Page: 16 of 623
L9L5ber1
1 THE COURT: They said 15 to 20 minutes so I imagine
2 the marshals need time to get Mr. Berry across the street. So,
3 unless anyone has anything further, we will break and
4 re-assemble across the street at 500 Pearl. Thank you.
5 So, one question. Mr. Hobson, is the government ready
6 to commence trial?
7 MR. HOBSON: Yes, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Mr. DeMarco?
9 MR. DeMARCO: Yes, Judge.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 MR. DeMARCO: Your Honor, we are going to meet over at
12 the jury room?
13 THE COURT: We will meet in the alcove outside the
14 jury assembly room. There will be jury department staff there
15 to assist.
16 Thank you.
17 (Jury selection contained under separate cover)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011131
Individual Pages
Page 4 - DOJ-OGR-00004030
Page 15 - DOJ-OGR-00011130
provided to us by the government, the government intends to introduce, through the medical examiner, photographs of these bedsores. So, I think that expert testimony, by itself, sufficiently will describe the bedsores that Mr. Jones was suffering at the time of his death.
MR. HOBSON: To be clear of what photographs we are introducing, we are not introducing the most graphic pictures of the bedsores. In fact, we were concerned in introducing some of the pictures that they wouldn't fully show how serious the bedsores were but we are not going to be putting in the most graphic pictures.
THE COURT: What I am going to allow is you will have some permission to lead with respect to the description of the injuries and sores. It's going to be brief and extraction of facts that you need that is not cumulative with medical testimony and evidence that's coming in. We will see how it goes but I am -- I intend to be extremely cautious given that this is non-expert medical testimony coming from a relative. So, the prospect of prejudice and emotion and sympathy is real and I'm not going to let it happen.
MR. HOBSON: Yes, your Honor. We understand.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. DeMARCO: No thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: OK. Any word, Ms. Williams?
(Discussion off record)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011130
Page 16 - DOJ-OGR-00011131
Case No.: 2020r00008
Document No.: 61908
Filed: 11/02/2020
Page: 16 of 623
L9L5ber1
1 THE COURT: They said 15 to 20 minutes so I imagine
2 the marshals need time to get Mr. Berry across the street. So,
3 unless anyone has anything further, we will break and
4 re-assemble across the street at 500 Pearl. Thank you.
5 So, one question. Mr. Hobson, is the government ready
6 to commence trial?
7 MR. HOBSON: Yes, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Mr. DeMarco?
9 MR. DeMARCO: Yes, Judge.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 MR. DeMARCO: Your Honor, we are going to meet over at
12 the jury room?
13 THE COURT: We will meet in the alcove outside the
14 jury assembly room. There will be jury department staff there
15 to assist.
16 Thank you.
17 (Jury selection contained under separate cover)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011131