DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
688 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
8
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court document / legal brief (motion or memorandum of law)
File Size:
688 KB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text argues legal standards for the 'Severance of Offenses,' citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 and various precedents regarding when charges should be tried separately to avoid prejudice to the defendant. It lists numerous case citations including U.S. v. Mitan, U.S. v. Bradford, and U.S. v. Burke to support the argument that misjoined counts must be severed.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mitan | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Mitan regarding improper joinder
|
| Bradford | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Bradford regarding remedy for misjoinder
|
| Jackson | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Jackson
|
| Winchester | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Winchester
|
| Burke | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Burke regarding Rule 14(a)
|
| Turoff | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in legal precedent
|
| Ramos | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Ramos regarding substantial prejudice
|
| Sampson | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Sampson
|
| Walker | Defendant in cited case law |
Cited in United States v. Walker regarding judicial economy
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| IRS |
Mentioned in context of false statements to an agent
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR)
|
|
| E.D. Pa. |
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
|
|
| D. Conn. |
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
|
|
| D.C. Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
|
|
| D. Del. |
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-01-25
Document 120 filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Court Filing
Key Quotes (5)
"If one or more counts are improperly joined in an indictment, the court must sever the misjoined counts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
Quote #1
"The remedy for the misjoinder is the severance of the misjoined count."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
Quote #2
"Rule 14(a) allows a district court to grant severance even if joinder is proper under Rule 8."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
Quote #3
"To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant must show that failure to sever will cause 'substantial prejudice.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
Quote #4
"The prejudice must be 'sufficiently severe to outweigh the judicial economy that would be realized by avoiding multiple lengthy trials.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,015 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 9 of 19
counts alleging false statements to IRS agent from separate corruption counts due to “speculative nature of the link” between the structuring and corruption offenses); United States v. Mitan, No. CRIM.A 08-760-01, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (joinder improper where alleged perjury did not arise from same transaction or comprise part of common plan with fraud counts in indictment).
If one or more counts are improperly joined in an indictment, the court must sever the misjoined counts. United States v. Bradford, 487 F. Supp. 1093, 1097 & n.5 (D. Conn. 1980) (“The remedy for the misjoinder is the severance of the misjoined count.”) (citing United States v. Jackson, 562 F.2d 789, 797 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1977)); United States v. Winchester, 407 F. Supp. 261 (D. Del. 1975) (a finding of misjoinder requires the court to sever the offenses as a matter of course “without regard to the merits of defendant’s claims of prejudice” under Rule 14).
B. Severance of Offenses
Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 provides, in relevant part,
(a) Relief. If the joinder of offenses ... appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires.
Rule 14(a) allows a district court to grant severance even if joinder is proper under Rule 8. United States v. Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d 395, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Turoff, 853 F.2d at 1043). To prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant must show that failure to sever will cause “substantial prejudice.” United States v. Ramos, No. 06 Cr. 172 (LTS), 2009 WL 1619912, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2009) (citing United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004)). The prejudice must be “sufficiently severe to outweigh the judicial economy that would be realized by avoiding multiple lengthy trials.” United States v. Walker, 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998).
5
DOJ-OGR-00002287
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document