DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
666 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
666 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout as the defendant making arguments against the indictment.
|
| Kidd | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Kidd'.
|
| Nersesian | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Nersesian'.
|
| Young | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Young'.
|
| Tramunti | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the citation 'Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113'.
|
| Stringer | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Stringer'.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited court cases, such as 'United States v. Kidd'.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Referred to as the prosecuting party against Maxwell.
|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body hearing the case and making rulings.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | court |
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, a U.S. District Court cited in legal cases.
|
| 2d Cir. | court |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in legal cases.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00020779', likely referring to the Department of Just...
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-04-16
Document 207 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case citations, referring to the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details Maxwell's legal arguments against the indictment brought by the Government, and the Court's rejection of those arguments in favor of the Government's position.
Key Quotes (1)
"This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse of children: allegations of sexual abuse of underage victims often proceed without specific dates of the offenses."Source
— United States v. Nersesian (as quoted in United States v. Kidd)
(Quoted as legal precedent to counter the argument that the indictment is too vague about the timing of the alleged crimes.)
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,211 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page161 of 208
A-157
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 20 of 34
A-157
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 20 of 34
to describe the window of when a violation occurred.” United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d
364, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir.
1987)). “This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse of children: allegations of sexual abuse
of underage victims often proceed without specific dates of the offenses.” United States v.
Young, No. 08-cr-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (collecting
cases). As here, these cases frequently involve alleged abuse spanning a lengthy period of time,
and witnesses who were victimized as children may struggle to recall the precise dates when
abuse occurred. The indictment adequately describes the time and place of the charged conduct.
Maxwell next contends that allegations of noncriminal conduct render the charges
impermissibly vague. The Court disagrees. Rule 7 requires only that the language of the
indictment track the language of the statute and provide a rough account of the time and place of
the crime. Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113. The language of the S1 superseding indictment does so.
The Government’s decision to provide more details than those strictly required does not hamper
Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. Maxwell’s argument that some of the conduct alleged is
not inherently criminal goes to the merits of the Government’s case, not the specificity of the
charges.
Finally, Maxwell argues that the indictment is vague because the government does not
provide the names of the alleged victims. The Court sees no basis to require that the alleged
victims’ names be included the indictment. The names of victims, even if important, generally
need not appear there unless their omission would seriously prejudice the defendant. See United
States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364,
369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Maxwell likely knows the identity of the alleged victims described in the
indictment at this point because the Government has provided extensive discovery on them.
364, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir.
1987)). “This is especially true in cases of sexual abuse of children: allegations of sexual abuse
of underage victims often proceed without specific dates of the offenses.” United States v.
Young, No. 08-cr-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (collecting
cases). As here, these cases frequently involve alleged abuse spanning a lengthy period of time,
and witnesses who were victimized as children may struggle to recall the precise dates when
abuse occurred. The indictment adequately describes the time and place of the charged conduct.
Maxwell next contends that allegations of noncriminal conduct render the charges
impermissibly vague. The Court disagrees. Rule 7 requires only that the language of the
indictment track the language of the statute and provide a rough account of the time and place of
the crime. Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113. The language of the S1 superseding indictment does so.
The Government’s decision to provide more details than those strictly required does not hamper
Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. Maxwell’s argument that some of the conduct alleged is
not inherently criminal goes to the merits of the Government’s case, not the specificity of the
charges.
Finally, Maxwell argues that the indictment is vague because the government does not
provide the names of the alleged victims. The Court sees no basis to require that the alleged
victims’ names be included the indictment. The names of victims, even if important, generally
need not appear there unless their omission would seriously prejudice the defendant. See United
States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364,
369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Maxwell likely knows the identity of the alleged victims described in the
indictment at this point because the Government has provided extensive discovery on them.
20
DOJ-OGR-00020779
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document