DOJ-OGR-00002293(1).jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, presents an argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The defense argues against the joinder of Perjury Counts with Mann Act Counts, asserting it would create a substantial risk of jury confusion and prejudice Ms. Maxwell. The document also accuses the government of strategically limiting the charges to the 1994-1997 period to avoid the legal implications of Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, while simultaneously trying to introduce conduct from a later period.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal arguments, referred to as the individual who would be prejudiced by the joinder of Perjury and M...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”), which the government is trying to avoid impactin...
|
|
| Ramos |
Cited in a legal precedent (Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912) regarding the severing of drug counts to avoid jury confusion.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case against Ms. Maxwell, accused of strategically framing charges to avoid legal challe...
|
| defense | legal team |
Mentioned in a footnote as disputing the government's interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1994-1997
The government chose to allege violations by Ms. Maxwell only within this narrow time period.
Relationships (1)
The document discusses how Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement is relevant to the government's prosecution of Ms. Maxwell, indicating a connection between their legal cases.
Key Quotes (2)
"was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment."Source
— government
(The government's argument regarding the scope of Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00002293(1).jpg
Quote #1
"severing “temporally distinct” drug counts involving a different controlled substance from other drug counts because of “the potential for jury confusion, or improper propensity inferences, with respect to the drug-related aspects of the original charges”"Source
— Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at *2
(A legal citation used to support the argument that joining different counts could confuse a jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00002293(1).jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document