DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
765 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
765 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the defense in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's motion to preclude evidence related to its motives for prosecution. The defense asserts its right to present evidence about the timing of the charges against Maxwell in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death, not to claim 'vindictive prosecution,' but to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. The defense argues that the government's motion is an overreach and an attempt to force the disclosure of their trial strategy.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant being prosecuted by the government.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his 2019 death and the timing of charges against Ms. Maxwell.
|
|
| Regan |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Regan'.
|
|
| Farhane |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Farhane'.
|
|
| Avenatti |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Avenatti'.
|
|
| Sanders |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Sanders'.
|
|
| Cuervelo |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Cuervelo'.
|
|
| Kyles |
Named in a case citation 'Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46'.
|
|
| Bowen |
Named in a case citation 'Bowen, 799 F.2d at'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body that the defense is asking to reject the government's demand.
|
| United States government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the government' and 'United States', it is the prosecuting party in the case against Ms. Maxwell.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The government's motion to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence about its motives for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation (S.D.N.Y. 2020), referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (2)
The document details a legal dispute where the government is the prosecutor and Ms. Maxwell is the defendant.
The defense argues that the government 'substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein after his death,' implying a connection that led to her prosecution.
Key Quotes (7)
"regarding the government’s supposed motives for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell, including evidence of Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant."Source
— The government (quoted by the defense)
(Quoted from the government's motion (Mot. at 34) describing the evidence they wish to preclude.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #1
"vindictive prosecution"Source
— Legal term
(A type of claim challenging prosecutors' motives, which the defense states it is not raising.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #2
"selective prosecution"Source
— Legal term
(A type of claim challenging prosecutors' motives, which the defense states it is not raising.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #3
"outrageous government conduct"Source
— Legal term
(A type of claim challenging prosecutors' motives, which the defense states it is not raising.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #4
"animus toward the defendant"Source
— Legal term
(A potential implication of arguing the government substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein, which the defense denies is their claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #5
"motivated by a discriminatory purpose"Source
— Legal term
(A potential implication of arguing the government substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein, which the defense denies is their claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #6
"due process considerations"Source
— Legal term
(A legal standard related to claims of outrageous government conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,180 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 50 of 69
no authority indicating that more is required. Indeed, the government’s demand for a proffer is nothing more than an attempt to force the defense to spell out exactly what it plans to ask the case agents and reveal its defense strategy. The Court should reject this demand.
IV. THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS
The government moves to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence and argument “regarding the government’s supposed motives for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell, including evidence of Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant.” Mot. at 34. Once again, the government’s motion reaches too far and should be denied.
First, as the government points out, challenges to the prosecutors’ motives are typically brought by raising claims of “vindictive prosecution,” “selective prosecution,” or “outrageous government conduct,” which must be resolved by the court, not the jury. See United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 167 (2d Cir. 2011). But the defense is not raising any of those claims. Simply arguing to the jury that the government substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein after his death does not imply that the prosecution was the result of the government’s “animus toward the defendant” (vindictive prosecution), or was “motivated by a discriminatory purpose” (selective prosecution), or was so outrageous that “due process considerations” must bar the prosecution (outrageous government conduct). See United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 562-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 716-17 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559, 565 (2d Cir. 1991).
Second, for the reasons set forth above, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence of Epstein’s death and the timing of the charges against Ms. Maxwell to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government’s investigation. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46; Bowen, 799 F.2d at
42
DOJ-OGR-00005505
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document