DOJ-OGR-00009596.jpg
681 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
681 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to vacate her conviction and dismiss the indictment. The Government contends that the conspiracies were distinct from those of Epstein, despite shared methods like grooming, and that the defendant has failed to prove her due process rights were violated by any pre-trial delay, as she has not shown actual prejudice.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Rocchio |
Mentioned as having testified at trial about the common use of grooming techniques among perpetrators of child sexual...
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as having committed crimes together with the defendant for years, but through different schemes.
|
|
| the defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the document, who is arguing for her conviction to be vacated and the indictment dismissed due to alle...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, arguing against the defendant's motions.
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body that has previously evaluated and rejected the defendant's arguments and is being asked to deny the...
|
Timeline (2 events)
A trial occurred where Dr. Rocchio testified and the Government presented its case against the defendant.
The defendant filed a motion to vacate her conviction and dismiss the indictment based on alleged improper pre-trial delay.
The Court
Relationships (1)
The Government was clear at trial that, while the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together for years, they did so through different schemes, in violation of different laws.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,969 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 34 of 51
It makes no difference, as the defendant argues, that both crimes involved grooming minors for sexual abuse. (Def. Mot. at 23-24). As Dr. Rocchio testified at trial, the use of grooming techniques is common among perpetrators of child sexual abuse. (See Tr. 713). But using a common tool among sexual offenders does not render the distinct conspiracies here multiplicitous; if that were true, presumably many federal crimes against children would be multiplicitous.
The Government was clear at trial that, while the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together for years, they did so through different schemes, in violation of different laws. That is what the S2 Indictment charged, and that is what the Government proved at trial: different conspiracy crimes. The Court should deny the motion and enter judgment on Counts Three and Five.
III. The Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Her Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied
The defendant contends that the Court should vacate her conviction and dismiss the Indictment because the Government’s allegedly excessive delay in bringing the charges violates her due process rights. (Def. Mot. at 25). The defendant’s contention should be swiftly rejected. The Court has twice evaluated the defendant’s speculative and baseless arguments and twice concluded that the defendant could not meet the “stringent standard” necessary to prevail on a claim that any alleged pre-indictment delay violates her due process rights. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). Her arguments fare no better post-trial.
The defendant has not and cannot successfully establish a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the defendant has not established that any alleged pre-indictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defense. Her speculative assertions about lost
33
DOJ-OGR-00009596
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document