DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif

39.7 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document / court filing
File Size: 39.7 KB
Summary

This document discusses legal arguments concerning the timeliness of an indictment against Maxwell and the scope of U.S. Attorney's powers. It states that the District Court denied Maxwell's motion, finding that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her. Maxwell also argues that certain counts are untimely and that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations (§ 3283) should not apply to her case.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Maxwell Defendant
Maxwell's motion was denied; argues indictment is untimely; contends Government cannot apply 2003 amendment to § 3283
Attorney General Government Official
Directs U.S. Attorneys in other districts and special appointments for legal proceedings.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
USAO-SDNY
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, not precluded from prosecuting Maxwell
District Court
Denied Maxwell's motion
Department of Justice
The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice

Timeline (3 events)

2003
Government cannot apply 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations.
Maxwell Government
Maxwell's motion denied by District Court without an evidentiary hearing.
Maxwell argues Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely.

Relationships (2)

Maxwell defendant-prosecutor USAO-SDNY
NPA did not preclude USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell
Maxwell defendant-court District Court
District Court denied Maxwell's motion

Key Quotes (5)

"In short, Annabi controls the result here. Nothing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests that the NPA precluded USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell for the charges in the Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell's motion without an evidentiary hearing."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
Quote #1
"Maxwell argues that Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely because they do not fall within the scope of offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and thereby do not fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283.19 Separately, Maxwell contends that the Government cannot apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations to"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
Quote #2
"18 This does not suggest that there are no instances in which a U.S. Attorney's powers do not extend beyond their districts. For instance, under 28 U.S.C. § 515 a U.S. Attorney can represent the Government or participate in proceedings in other districts, but only when specifically directed by the Attorney General:"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
Quote #3
"The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding... which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
Quote #4
"19 18 U.S.C. § 3283 provides: "[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.""
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
Quote #5

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document