DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
40.7 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court filing
File Size:
40.7 KB
Summary
This document is a legal ruling or excerpt from a legal ruling concerning a defendant named Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's attempts to dismiss her indictment, stating that she failed to prove her accusers fabricated stories or that the government's delay caused actual prejudice, and that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are sufficiently specific.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Seeking to dismiss indictment, accused of offenses, her right to fair trial, failed to establish actual prejudice, se...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Will not dismiss indictment, will take steps to ensure fair trial, concludes Maxwell failed to establish prejudice, c...
|
|
| Government |
Delay in bringing charges, to submit a bill of particulars
|
|
| United States |
Party in legal precedents United States v. Stavroulakis and United States v. Tramunti
|
Timeline (3 events)
Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay in bringing charges.
Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to submit a bill of particulars.
Relationships (2)
Government's delay in bringing charges; Maxwell seeks to compel Government
Key Quotes (5)
"The Court will not dismiss the indictment on Maxwell's bare assertion that numerous witnesses are engaged in a perjurious conspiracy against her."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
Quote #1
"The Court thus concludes that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay in bringing charges."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
Quote #2
"The Court concludes that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are clear enough."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
Quote #3
"Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, an indictment must contain "a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
Quote #4
""Under this test, an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,724 characters)
73a
alleges without evidence that her accusers fabricated
their stories based on media allegations. The Court
will not dismiss the indictment on Maxwell's bare
assertion that numerous witnesses are engaged in a
perjurious conspiracy against her. And the Court will
take all appropriate steps to ensure that the pretrial
publicity in this case does not compromise Maxwell's
right to a fair and impartial jury.
The Court thus concludes that Maxwell has failed to
establish actual prejudice from the Government's
delay in bringing charges. She may renew her motion
if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On the
present record, neither the applicable statute of
limitations nor due process bars the charges here.
III. The indictment describes the charged offenses
with specificity
Maxwell seeks to dismiss the Mann Act counts for
lack of specificity or in the alternative to compel the
Government to submit a bill of particulars providing
greater detail of the charges. The Court concludes that
the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are clear
enough.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, an
indictment must contain "a plain, concise, and definite
written statement of the essential facts constituting
the offense charged." The indictment must be specific
enough to inform the defendant of the charges and
allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later
prosecution based on the same events. United States v.
Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). "Under
this test, an indictment need do little more than to
track the language of the statute charged and state the
time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged
crime." United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113
DOJ-OGR-00000136
alleges without evidence that her accusers fabricated
their stories based on media allegations. The Court
will not dismiss the indictment on Maxwell's bare
assertion that numerous witnesses are engaged in a
perjurious conspiracy against her. And the Court will
take all appropriate steps to ensure that the pretrial
publicity in this case does not compromise Maxwell's
right to a fair and impartial jury.
The Court thus concludes that Maxwell has failed to
establish actual prejudice from the Government's
delay in bringing charges. She may renew her motion
if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On the
present record, neither the applicable statute of
limitations nor due process bars the charges here.
III. The indictment describes the charged offenses
with specificity
Maxwell seeks to dismiss the Mann Act counts for
lack of specificity or in the alternative to compel the
Government to submit a bill of particulars providing
greater detail of the charges. The Court concludes that
the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are clear
enough.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, an
indictment must contain "a plain, concise, and definite
written statement of the essential facts constituting
the offense charged." The indictment must be specific
enough to inform the defendant of the charges and
allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later
prosecution based on the same events. United States v.
Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). "Under
this test, an indictment need do little more than to
track the language of the statute charged and state the
time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged
crime." United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113
DOJ-OGR-00000136
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document