EpsteinProject.org

Court records

002_41

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

         Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ   Document 2   Filed 07/02/20   Page 1 of 7



                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


United States of America

     v.                                           Case No. 20-mj-132-AJ-1

Ghislaine Maxwell


                           Public Access Findings

I.   Background

     This hearing is taking place during the public health

emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.            All parties to this

proceeding, including the court, are appearing remotely via

video.     In light of the anticipated volume of public and media

interest and the operational/capacity limitations of

videoconference technology, public and media access to the

proceeding will be via telephonic conference.             The court’s

protocols for this hearing are laid out in Standing Order 20-7

(Mar. 23, 2020). 1     The court finds that conducting this hearing

via video — under the unique circumstances presented by the

COVID-19 pandemic — is the best way to ensure the safety of the

litigants, court personnel, and the public at large.               All

findings made in the court’s prior standing orders are




     1 Standing Order 20-7 was extended to August 1, 2020 by
Standing Order 20-21 (June 17, 2020).
                                       1
          Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ   Document 2   Filed 07/02/20   Page 2 of 7



incorporated herein.        See Standing Orders 20-5 (Mar. 20, 2020)

and 20-21 (June 17, 2020). 2

      The hearing held today will be an initial appearance and

removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.                Today’s

hearing has been noticed as a video hearing.              In the event

defendant consents to proceed, the court makes the findings

below.

      Before convening this video/telephone hearing, the court

carefully considered the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to

public court proceedings and the public’s and press’s First



[…]

Open in the archive