Court Observation

I attended the class court observation trip on Thursday April 17th at the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The first case we observed was USA v. Belliotti, a drug trafficking case. It appeared as though the prosecution was going through the process of admitting evidence (JFK airport records) into the court record by having a witness on the stand explain what each record meant and confirming that they looked accurate. It was unclear what the witness’s relation to the case was, other than that he had knowledge about how information is recoded at the JFK airport. From just the snapshot of what we observed, it wasn’t clear what the case was about. We witnessed one of the more sterile and tedious aspects of a trial.

The second case we observed was USA v. Acevedo, a murder case. One of the first things I heard the prosecution mention was something about how the case was related to drill music. To be honest, this immediately soured me on the prosecution because I personally believe that artistic expression including music lyrics should be protected from being used as evidence in court cases. From what we observed, it wasn’t clear if either party was going to attempt to use song lyrics as evidence. However, I did feel that the prosecution was attempting to use the defendant’s drill music career to diminish his character and call to mind in the Jury how popular media has portrayed drill music as extraordinarily violent and how New York City’s Mayor, Eric Adams, has gone as far to declare war on drill rap.

In the USA v. Acevedo case, the prosecution was questioning a witness who appeared to be in a rival gang of the defendant. The scope of the questioning seemed to be very wide, and it was unclear how all the facts being established were relevant to the murder case. It was also unclear how the witness had been compelled to testify. The witness was clearly unhappy about testifying. The questions and answers seemed to incriminate the witness himself as well as the witness’s family members and fellow gang members rather than establishing much that would incriminate the defendant.  This to me reflected poorly on the prosecution who it seemed had been the party that compelled the witness to testify. I personally feel that if you have presented a witness who has agreed in some way to help your case, you have a duty (even if its not a legal duty) to demonstrate goodwill to that witness and to do otherwise reflects poorly on your character.

Law in Culture

My sources are two podcast episodes titled “Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Day 1” and “Episode 201: Julie K. Brown” produced by the True Anon podcast. The episodes were released November 29, 2021, and January 16, 2022, respectively. The episodes can be found on any podcast streaming platform such as Spotify, Soundcloud, or Patreon.

True Anon podcast co-hosts, Brace Belden and Liz Franczak, travelled to New York City to attend and cover United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial) at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The pair attended each day of the trial and recorded and released podcast episodes each evening in which they recapped what they observed and provided commentary.

In the episode, “Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Day 1”, Belden lists the federal felony charges against Maxwell, which include 1 count enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, 1 count of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in illegal sex acts, 1 count of sex trafficking a minor, and 3 counts of conspiracy. Belden notes Maxwell was also charged with 2 counts of perjury which would be considered in a separate trial.

Both the prosecution and defense gave opening statements on the first day of the trial. Lara Pomerantz delivered the prosecution’s opening statements by telling the story of Victim 1. Pomerantz used Victim 1’s story to illustrate the dynamic between Epstein and Maxwell who together sexually preyed on young women by exploiting their class dynamics. She specifically described crimes committed by Epstein before explaining how Maxwell facilitated the crimes. Pomerantz also laid out what evidence the prosecution would present during trial which included massage tables, nude photos, flight logs, travel logs, and gift receipts. Additionally, Pomerantz discussed what witnesses would be presented.

Bobbi Sternheim delivered the defense’s opening statements. She began by saying, “Ever since Eve tempted Adam, women have been blamed for the crimes of men”. Sternheim made the argument that because Epstein died before he could be tried by the same court, Ghislaine had essentially become a scapegoat for his crimes. Additionally, Sternheim stated the trial was about “money, memory, and manipulation” arguing that each of the victims were either after money, experiencing false memories, and/or being manipulated by the prosecution into testifying. Sternheim ended the opening argument by going through each victim one by one and laying out where she would contest them.

Outside of these restatements of the opening remarks, much of the commentary made by Belden and Franczak was comedic or focused on the energy of the trial and courtroom. They did discuss their concern over how the prosecution would present a convincing case. Specifically, the hosts felt that Ghislaine more than anything was guilty of grooming minors and that because grooming is not a legal term the prosecution would have to be creative in how they defined it and how they would find applicable laws.

I chose next to listen to “Episode 201: Julie K. Brown”. This episode was published a few weeks after the trial had ended and served as a retrospective on the trial. Belden and Franczak recorded the episode with Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown who had also attended the trial. Brown began covering Epstein in the early 2000s after he was arrested in 2006 by the Palm Beach Police Department on one state felony charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” and agreed to a plea deal with the Southern District of Florida that included a non-prosecution agreement with four named and any other unnamed co-conspirators. From Brown’s viewpoint, the original case against Epstein had been mishandled and the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial was “…an attempt to hold at least someone accountable…” but only addressed “…one piece of a huge crime…”. The case was prosecuted incredibly narrowly as to avoid any mention of third parties which Brown believed would only sew more distrust in the criminal justice system.

While legal concepts arose in these two episodes, most weren’t explained in detail. Basic courtroom roles such as “prosecution”, “defense”, and “judge” were mentioned. The trial venue was mentioned but the basis for jurisdiction was not addressed. The charges against Maxwell were listed but not defined. Interestingly, Julie K Brown stated that the charges against Maxwell were specifically designed to avoid the statute of limitations. Brown briefly described how Epstein’s Palm Beach Charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” had originated from a 14-year-old victim but had been misattributed to a 16-year-old victim to lessen its legal weight. Brown also discussed how the non-prosecution agreement from the Southern District of Florida may have had a role in the narrow scope of Maxwell’s trial. Brown also briefly mentioned that while building a case against Epstein in Florida, an assistant district attorney suddenly quit and was hired days later to work for Epstein’s defense team. This was never investigated but made me immediately think of our recent chapter on Ethics and Responsibility in regard to conflicts of interest and walling off procedures when an attorney changes jobs.

I feel these episodes accurately portrayed the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and accurately represented what the legal field can be like. However, this was a unique, high-profile federal felony trial with an incredibly narrow scope that should have been properly prosecuted as far back as 2005. There are certainly other high-profile trials that become media spectacles, but I’d wager those aren’t representative of the trials that happen every in federal court. Big cases like these have certainly played a role in my interest in the legal profession and specifically my interest in working as an investigator. The prosecution of both Epstein and Maxwell not only uncovered a peek into their incredibly bizarre and audacious world but also revealed that there are forces within the state and federal government that would like to keep as much as possible of that world behind closed doors.

Claire’s Timekeeping Post

Calendar due dates; review course syllabi, Blackboard, and OpenLab to create list of upcoming due dates and strategize order of completing work – 0.25

Study for Civil Law and Procedure Midterm; using study guide from Blackboard, make new document complaining relevant notes – 0.75

Study for Intro to Paralegal Studies Midterm; using study guide class handout, make new document complaining relevant notes – 0.75

Make and eat lunch – 0.25

Read news and check social media – 0.25

Resume Studying for Intro to Paralegal Studies Midterm – 0.50

Read chapters 15-16 for Intro to Public Speaking and take both chapter quizzes – 0.75

Nap – 0.50

I thought this experience would be more tedious than I actually found it. I think it helped me stay a bit more on track than usual. I typically make a to-do list for the week or a given day I’ve devoted to studying, which helps me feel motivated as I check off boxes. But adding the element of recording time helped me to remember to take breaks and to focus on multiple courses rather than zoning in on just one.

Law in Culture

I have chosen to listen to a series of episodes that cover the Ghislaine Maxwell trial by the podcast TrueAnon. The podcast is hosted by union activist and media personality Brace Beldan and writer Liz Franczack. I intend to listen to 19 episodes which cover the 18 days of trial and jury deliberation in 2021 and the sentencing in 2022. Beldan and Franczack attended the trial here in New York City at the southern district court and recorded episodes each night of the trial. The podcast, which originally began in 2019 to cover the Jeffery Epstein trial in New York City, moved on to cover his past and related associates. They narrowed in on Ghislaine Maxwell during her months of hiding and subsequent arrest and trial. The podcast cannot be accurately described as true crime nor conspiracy (though their comedic name choice hints at both). Rather, they broadly offer left-wing analysis of American and global political issues and events.

Law Office

Link

I would like to work for the Criminal Defense Practice at The Legal Aid Society located at 111 Livingston St, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Alternatively I would like to work for the Manhattan location at 40 Worth St, New York, NY 10013. From what I know from attorneys who work for LAS, the office is large and paralegals and investigators have their own full-time desks located near the attorneys they work with. The Criminal Defense Practice focuses exclusively on representing indigent clients accused of committing crimes. One reason I feel passionate about this law office is because money and class should not act as a gate for our rights afforded by the constitution. In addition working alongside criminal defense attorneys helps me fight mass incarceration and protect some of the most vulnerable sectors of our population including low-income, queer, and people of color. The Legal Aid Society is a large law firm with multiple satellite offices in all 5 boroughs. Lastly I would feel secure working for Legal Aid because of their strong and prideful union culture for paralegals and investigators.

https://legalaidnyc.org/about/mission-core-values/

https://legalaidnyc.org/what-we-do/defending-the-accused-incarcerated/

https://www.1199seiu.org/nycli/legal-aid-society-contract-talks-begin

Who I Am!

Hello, my name is Claire. I am majoring in Paralegal Studies because I want to become a paralegal investigator for a public defender. I want to work for defense because I don’t believe the system of incarceration in United States functions for the public good. I enjoy researching and think I have an aptitude and an intuition that suits investigative fieldwork. I like the professional options that come with a paralegal degree and I’d like to have a better understanding of the law and legal system in general. Outside of school I am very interested in fashion and design and I am fascinated by reality TV and the personas people create for themselves.