DOJ-OGR-00008387.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document548- Filed 12/15/21 Page1of6 USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 1 United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, MEMORANDUM Defendant. OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Defense on December 12, 2021, moved to permit three anticipated witnesses to testify under a pseudonym or their first names only. The Government filed a letter opposing this request on December 14, 2021. The Defense’s primary contention is that some form of anonymity for its witnesses is justified by the same reasons that the Court permitted three alleged victims and two related government witnesses to testify under pseudonyms. The Court disagrees with this basic premise and denies the Defense’s motion. “By convention, most witness examinations begin with an introduction of the witness to the fact finder, including the witness’s name, education, residence, work history, family etc. Such background gives the fact finder some insight into who the witness is while also serving to steady the witness’s nerves.” 30 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Evidence § 6408 (2d ed. 2021); see Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 (1931). That presumption of identification is based, in part, on the “firmly established” principle that “the press and general public have a constitutional right of access to criminal trials . . . embodied in the First Amendment.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982). “There are rare instances, however, when it may be appropriate . . . to preclude... inquiring into the witness’s identity and background.” Wright & Miller, supra, § 6408. 1 DOJ-OGR-00008387