@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document 63207
AI Analysis
Summary: Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team requested an adjournment of a hearing on her Motion for New Trial due to their unavailability. The court denied the request, citing that two of her four attorneys could attend and that the public interest favored a prompt hearing.
Significance: This document reveals the court's decision to deny the defendant's request for a two-month adjournment of the hearing on her Motion for New Trial, despite her counsel's scheduling conflicts.
Key Topics:
Request for adjournment of hearing
Motion for New Trial
Scheduling conflict of defendant's counsel
Key People:
- Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant
- Alison J. Nathan - United States District Judge
- Jeffrey S. Pagliuca - Defense Attorney
- Ms. Menninger - Defense Attorney
- Ms. Sternheim - Defense Attorney
Full Text
Case#: 2020cr00303(PaN Document#: 63207 Filed03/03/22 Pa9e1lof2
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
950 17th Street
Suite 1000
Denver, Colorado 80202
PH 303.831.7364
FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 3/3/22
March 2, 2022
VIA EMAIL
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Maxwell Request for adjournment of hearing on Motion for New Trial
Dear Judge Nathan,
Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court continue the hearing scheduled to occur on March 8, 2021. Unfortunately, Ms. Maxwell's Colorado based counsel are unavailable.
Mr. Pagliuca will be in a criminal jury trial in Eagle County Colorado, People v. Robert Fergus-Jean, 2020 CR 000304. Both sides announced ready on February 9, 2022. The trial will begin on March 7 and will last approximately 10 days. Ms. Menninger is and unavailable to travel to New York
On March 16, 2022, Ms. Sternheim starts a trial, of approximately six-week duration, before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman in United States v. Marquez-Alejandro and Blondet, 16 Cr. 387 (JMF), the trial that was rescheduled to accommodate commencement of Ms. Maxwell's trial last November.
The requested two-month adjournment to May is not justified and is therefore DENIED. Two of the Defendant's four attorneys are able to be present and represent the Defendant at the March 8 hearing. The Court will conduct the questioning at the hearing, and the parties have already submitted briefing and proposed questions. The public interest in a reasonably prompt hearing outweighs the Defendant's preference for an adjournment. SO ORDERED.
Alison J. Nathan
3/3/22