DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg
766 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
766 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in which the prosecution (Government) argues against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss her indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The Government cites several legal precedents (Pierre-Louis, Burke, Carbonaro) to argue that the defendant has failed to show the delay was improper or for a tactical advantage. The document also addresses Maxwell's specific claim that the Government delayed the indictment to benefit from a separate civil litigation involving Giuffre, a claim the Government refutes.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pierre-Louis | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140' where a motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay was...
|
| Burke | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837' where a motion to dismi...
|
| Carbonaro | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (RCC), 2004 WL 2222145' where a motion to ...
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the current case, who is claiming the Government intentionally delayed her indictment.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Referenced as the subject of an alleged campaign to vilify her and as a party in civil discovery.
|
| Giuffre | Party in a civil litigation |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Giuffre civil litigation', from which the Government sought materials via subpoena.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the judicial body that would determine the applicability of a delay period.
|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party, accused by the defendant of improperly delaying the indictment for a tactical advantage.
|
| Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP | company |
A law firm to which the Government issued a subpoena to obtain materials.
|
| Boies Schiller | company |
An abbreviated name for the law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document control number (DOJ-OGR-00003017), indicating the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2018
In the case of Pierre-Louis, a motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay was denied.
The defendant, Maxwell, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on pre-indictment delay.
Relationships (3)
The document details the Government's legal arguments against Maxwell's motion to dismiss, positioning them as opposing parties in a criminal case.
Implied by the mention of the 'Giuffre civil litigation' from which information about Maxwell was sought, suggesting they were opposing parties in that case.
The Government issued a subpoena to the law firm to obtain materials, indicating a formal legal interaction for the purpose of evidence gathering.
Key Quotes (1)
"has been advantageous to the government to have aggressive lawyers collecting information from Ms. Maxwell as part of civil discovery and disseminating that information to the public, as part of an ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell."Source
— Maxwell
(Quoted from the defendant's motion (Def. Mot. 7 at 16) as part of her assertion that the Government intentionally delayed the indictment to capitalize on civil litigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,244 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 83 of 239
satisfied that he should prosecute and will be able promptly to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Moreover, even if the Court were to determine that a twenty-six-year period of delay were applicable here, the defendant’s motion should be dismissed because she failed to show that the Government acted improperly to obtain a tactical advantage. See, e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140 (denying motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay as to conduct charged in 2016 involving sexual abuse of minors from 1998 to 2007 as defendant failed to satisfy both prongs of pre-indictment delay standard); United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss indictment based on thirty-year pre-indictment delay because even if unavailability of alibi witnesses were prejudicial, defendant failed to show that government delayed for its own benefit); United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (RCC), 2004 WL 2222145 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004) (in a racketeering conspiracy case in which a 14-year-old murder was alleged as a predicate act, finding that, even assuming defendant had shown actual prejudice, defendant’s motion to dismiss based on pre-indictment delay failed because defendant supplied no evidence that government’s conduct was for an improper purpose).
The defendant claims that the Government intentionally delayed the indictment in this case with a prescient view towards capitalizing on civil litigation. For instance, Maxwell asserts that it “has been advantageous to the government to have aggressive lawyers collecting information from Ms. Maxwell as part of civil discovery and disseminating that information to the public, as part of an ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell.” (Def. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (“Boies Schiller”) to obtain materials from the Giuffre civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained such materials through a judicially approved and entirely appropriate
56
DOJ-OGR-00003017
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document