DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
668 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
668 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to dismiss the Superseding Indictment against her. The defense claims the indictment is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify dates for the alleged crimes beyond a broad '1994-1997' range and lacks specific details, thereby preventing Ms. Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing requests the Court to either dismiss counts one through four of the indictment or compel the Government to provide a Bill of Particulars with more specific information.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the Superseding Indictment, who is alleged to have committed a crime between 1994-1997.
|
| Resendiz-Ponce |
A party in the cited legal case 'United States v. Resendiz-Ponce'.
|
|
| Hamling |
A party in the cited legal case 'Hamling v. United States'.
|
|
| Russell |
A party in the cited legal case 'Russell v. United States'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case against Ms. Maxwell.
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body being asked to dismiss the indictment or direct the Government to provide more details.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1994-1997
The time period during which Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, as stated in the Superseding Indictment.
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the Government's indictment against Ms. Maxwell and her defense's argument that the indictment is legally insufficient and should be dismissed.
Key Quotes (5)
"from at least in or about"Source
— Superseding Indictment
(A phrase from the Indictment used to describe the timeframe of the alleged crimes, which the defense argues is too vague.)
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
Quote #1
"beginning in at least."Source
— Superseding Indictment
(A phrase from the Indictment used to describe the timeframe of the alleged crimes, which the defense argues is too vague.)
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
Quote #2
"a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . ."Source
— Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1)
(A legal requirement for an indictment cited in the argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
Quote #3
"the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend,"Source
— United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
(The first of two constitutional requirements for a sufficient indictment, quoted from case law.)
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
Quote #4
"to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense."Source
— United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
(The second of two constitutional requirements for a sufficient indictment, quoted from case law.)
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,901 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 124 Filed 01/25/21 Page 4 of 8
INTRODUCTION
The Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) in this case is remarkable because it fails to identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in the Indictment are the years 1994-1997, often combined with phrases such as “from at least in or about” and “beginning in at least.” This mishmash of a pleading was carefully crafted to not provide Ms. Maxwell with the necessary information to adequately investigate these false allegations and prepare for trial. Ms. Maxwell is innocent and should not have to guess about what evidence the Government claims warrants her continual incarceration but stubbornly refuses to identify or disclose. The Court should dismiss Counts One through Four of the Indictment or direct the Government to provide Ms. Maxwell with proper discovery and a Bill of Particulars.
ARGUMENT
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) requires, among other things, that an indictment contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . .” There are two constitutional requirements for an indictment to be sufficient: (1) it must contain “the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend,” and (2) it must enable the defendant “to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). An indictment that fails to allege the essential elements of the crime charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 760–61 (1962).
1
DOJ-OGR-00002314
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document