US District Judge Allison J. Nathan has ruled on a series of redactions proposed by Ghislaine Maxwell and prosecutors to transcripts which were submitted under seal in February.
On Thursday, the Judge allowed the redactions to remain in place over Maxwell’s objections, as reported by Law and Crime.
In January, Maxwell’s legal team filed 12 motions requesting that the court dismiss all of the charges relating to her alleged role as recruiter of young girls for the now-deceased Jeffrey Epstein.
The government responded in February by opposing her legal team’s motions, which were filed under seal pending rulings on the redactions. The judge sided with Maxwell, noting that making the details public would cater to a ‘sensational and impure’ public appetite.
Here’s more from Law and Crime:
“Judge Nathan, citing privacy interests, did side with Maxwell on several additional redactions proposed to transcripts submitted as part of the government’s filing, finding that to make those details public would only tend to cater to an appetite for the “sensational and impure.”
“Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a ‘craving for that which is sensational and impure,’” she wrote. “The Court thus concludes that such redactions are justified.”
It’s unclear what Judge Nathan has redacted, but Judge Loretta Preska — the federal judge in the civil case — ruled on Jan. 19 that details Maxwell provided about her consensual sexual relationships with adults would remain redacted in publicly released versions of deposition transcripts (see: Miami Herald, “Judge orders release of more Ghislaine Maxwell records — minus salacious details”)”
Ghislaine Maxwell, who is 59 years old, has now been in a federal detention in Brooklyn for 59 months. Her trial is scheduled to begin in July on charges of perjury and conspiracy to entice minors in the 1990s to have sex with Epstein.
The prosecutors of the case argued that its redactions to transcripts were required in order to protect the integrity of its ongoing criminal investigation and to protect the interests of private parties.
The court will allow the government to seek more tailored redactions before the redactions are removed on the public docket.