DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
728 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
728 KB
Summary
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges due to pre-indictment delay. The government contends that the defendant has not shown the delay was an intentional strategic tactic, citing legal precedents like Lovasco to support that investigative delays are permissible. The filing refutes the defendant's timeline, stating the relevant investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators began in late 2018, not decades prior.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lovasco | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation of a legal precedent, Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790, regarding due process claims and pre-indict...
|
| Ewell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation of a legal precedent, United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966), quoted within the L...
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation and indictment |
Mentioned as the subject of an investigation by the USAO-SDNY that began in late November 2018 and resulted in an ind...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Referred to as the prosecuting party in the case, accused by the defendant of intentional delay.
|
| USAO-SDNY | government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which opened the investigation into Epstei...
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government continued its investigation, which included interviewing two victims.
Government
two victims
Relationships (2)
The document is a legal filing where the Government is arguing against a motion filed by the defendant.
The document states that the USAO-SDNY opened its investigation into 'Epstein and his co-conspirators'.
Key Quotes (3)
"necessary but not sufficient"Source
— Lovasco case precedent
(Describing the level of prejudice required to establish a due process claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
Quote #1
"would have a deleterious effect both upon the rights of the accused and upon the ability of society to protect itself."Source
— United States v. Ewell (quoted in Lovasco)
(Describing the negative effects of forcing prosecutors to file charges as soon as probable cause exists.)
DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]actical, reckless, and bad faith motives can reasonably be inferred from the way the government has ignored evidence, delayed any prosecution, enlisted partisan lawyers to do its bidding, circumvented established precedent to illegally obtain evidence, and misleadingly quoting banal testimony so that it could be labeled ‘perjury.’"Source
— The defendant
(An argument from the defendant's motion (Def. Mot. 7 at 15) alleging improper motives by the government.)
DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,150 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 81 of 239
2. Discussion
Even if the defendant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be “necessary but not sufficient” to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant’s motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by the Government was intentional and deliberate to gain a strategic advantage. Here, as in Lovasco, any pre-indictment delay was the result of the Government’s continuing investigation of the case. The Lovasco Court held that the investigative delay did not deprive the defendant of his due process rights and noted that imposing a duty upon prosecutors to file charges as soon as probable cause exists “ʻwould have a deleterious effect both upon the rights of the accused and upon the ability of society to protect itself.’” Id. at 791 (quoting United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120 (1966)).
The same is true in the present case. The defendant has not shown—and cannot show— that the Government caused any pre-indictment delay in this case to gain a tactical advantage. The defendant argues that “[t]actical, reckless, and bad faith motives can reasonably be inferred from the way the government has ignored evidence, delayed any prosecution, enlisted partisan lawyers to do its bidding, circumvented established precedent to illegally obtain evidence, and misleadingly quoting banal testimony so that it could be labeled ‘perjury.’” (Def. Mot. 7 at 15). But rhetoric aside, the defendant offers nothing beyond baseless speculation in support of her claims.
The defendant claims a twenty-six-year delay on the part of the Government in bringing Counts One through Four and a four-year delay as to Counts Five and Six. (Def. Mot. 7 at 4). That is not so. The USAO-SDNY opened its investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators in late November 2018. See Section IV, infra. Epstein was charged by indictment on July 2, 2019. Thereafter, the Government continued its investigation, which included interviewing two victims
54
DOJ-OGR-00003015
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document