DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
656 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
656 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss an indictment based on pre-indictment delay. Maxwell argues the delay prejudiced her defense because potential witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, have died. The court rejects this argument, finding no evidence of improper government purpose for the delay and concluding that Maxwell's claims about what deceased witnesses might have testified are too speculative to meet the high standard required for dismissal.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Marion |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971).
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case, arguing that a pre-indictment delay violated her due process rights.
|
| DeMichele |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790–91 (2d Ci...
|
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Potential witness |
Mentioned as a deceased potential witness who Maxwell claims would have provided exculpatory testimony.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein's mother | Potential witness |
Mentioned as a deceased potential witness who Maxwell claims would have provided exculpatory testimony.
|
| Scala |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399–400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Government agency |
Referenced in a quote regarding the Due Process Clause and prosecution delays.
|
| Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7 | Government agency |
A party in the case citation DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7.
|
| Government | Government agency |
Refers to the prosecution, which Maxwell accuses of intentionally delaying charges.
|
| United States | Government |
Party in the case citations United States v. Marion and United States v. Scala.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
The document explicitly refers to 'Jeffrey Epstein and his mother'.
Maxwell identifies Jeffrey Epstein as a potential witness in her case, indicating a connection relevant to the charges against her.
Key Quotes (1)
"Thus, while the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar."Source
— DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7
(Quoted to illustrate the stringent standard for claims of pre-indictment delay violating due process.)
DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,182 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page158 of 208
A-154
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34
A-154
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34
171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971)). There is a strong presumption that an indictment filed within the statute of limitations is valid. To prevail on a claim that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a defendant must show both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant’s ability defend against the charges. See id. This is a stringent standard. “Thus, while the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar.” DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790–91 (2d Cir. 1999).
The Court sees no evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. However, it is enough to say that Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.
Maxwell first points to several potential witnesses who have passed away. These include Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged victims in this case, and a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida. She contends they all would have provided exculpatory testimony were they alive today. Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399–400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell
The Court sees no evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. However, it is enough to say that Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.
Maxwell first points to several potential witnesses who have passed away. These include Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged victims in this case, and a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida. She contends they all would have provided exculpatory testimony were they alive today. Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399–400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell
17
DOJ-OGR-00020776
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document