DOJ-OGR-00002294.jpg
752 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
752 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against including perjury counts in Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial. The author contends that doing so would force the relitigation of a complex and unresolved civil defamation case (dismissed in 2017), making the current trial unnecessarily long and confusing. Furthermore, it raises the issue that including these counts could force Ms. Maxwell's long-term lawyers to testify, potentially leading to their disqualification from the case.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Sweet | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who had not yet ruled on evidentiary challenges in a prior civil defamation case.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case. The document discusses the potential prejudice to her if Perjury Counts are included in he...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the criminal case, whose intentions regarding certain legal issues are questioned and whose ...
|
Timeline (3 events)
2017-05
A civil defamation case, which had generated over 900 docket entries and had many unresolved motions, was dismissed.
A criminal trial is being discussed, with arguments made against including perjury counts due to the potential for making it unnecessarily lengthy and confusing.
Depositions are mentioned in the context of a prior civil case, where questions were posed to alleged victims.
Relationships (1)
The document states that including Perjury Counts may require Ms. Maxwell's counsel to testify, which could lead to the disqualification of lawyers who have represented her for over five years.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document