DOJ-OGR-00004020.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 248 Filed 04/26/21 Page3of9 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIA\ very serious offense. Ms. Maxwell observed three guards going through the Redweld, reading papers and pages of the notebook, dividing papers into two stacks, and leaving the room with the papers. The lieutenant took the papers out of Ms. Maxwell’s sight. Ms. Maxwell asked the guards what documents were being taken; the guards refused to respond. While Ms. Maxwell could not see with specificity which documents were seized and removed to another room, she does know that documents contained in the folders and reviewed by the guards were subject to the protective order, attorney-client privileged communication, and defense work-product. Guards confronted Ms. Maxwell and stated in sum and substance: We want you to know that what you did was a very serious infraction. It was so serious that it is worthy of an incident report and a disciplinary. It has been decided this time you will receive a caution. Intimidation and Humiliation Off-Camera After the confiscation of her papers, Ms. Maxwell requested and was given permission to use the bathroom. But unlike any other occasion, the guard team leader stood knee to knee with Ms. Maxwell while Ms. Maxwell sat on the commode in the small area containing one toilet and a sink. In addition to denying Ms. Maxwell any privacy, the guard confronted her in a confined space off-camera. Although Ms. Maxwell was ultimately informed that she would not receive a disciplinary infraction for the incident, being falsely accused of “‘a very serious offense” and having a guard standing over her while she used the commode caused Ms. Maxwell to feel intimidated and humiliated. A Further Chill on Attorney-Client Communication, Confidentiality, And Capacity to Prepare for Trial Being falsely accused of an infraction, being threatened with discipline, and having her legal papers confiscated has caused Ms. Maxwell to feel heightened insecurity under the control of her officious handlers. Further, this incident has put a chill on attorney-client communication because Ms. Maxwell no longer feels that she can bring legal materials to legal conferences. At the in-person legal conference on Sunday, Ms. Maxwell specifically chose not to bring documents that if confiscated and reviewed by MDC staff would compromise her defense. Documents seized on Saturday were given to Ms. Saffian, but it is unknown whether any seized documents were retained or copied by the MDC. The documents returned to Ms. Saffian had been sent as “legal mail” to Ms. Maxwell by other counsel sometime prior to the Saturday visit and had never been possessed by me or Ms. Saffian. Ms. Maxwell’s reaction and concerns are well-founded. The guards took undue advantage of her. If they believed that counsel had given documents to Ms. Maxwell for her retention, they should have addressed the issue in the presence of counsel. The conduct of which both Ms. Maxwell and counsel have been accused did not happen; and the conduct on the part of the guards was reprehensible. DOJ-OGR-00004020