DOJ-OGR-00005498.jpg
755 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
6
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
755 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a defense argument for the admissibility of evidence concerning the history of investigations into Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that explaining the timeline of the Florida and New York investigations, Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, and Maxwell's subsequent 2020 indictment is crucial for her defense and not confusing for a jury. The document refutes the government's concerns, arguing the narrative is straightforward and necessary to explain why Maxwell was not charged alongside Epstein initially.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the subject of an indictment in June 2020 and the defendant in the current case.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his death, a 2019 indictment, and investigations in Florida and New York.
|
|
| Bowen |
Mentioned in a legal citation (Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613).
|
|
| Lindsey |
Mentioned in a legal citation (Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042).
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Miami Herald | company |
Mentioned for publishing articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, leading to the New York inve...
|
Timeline (6 events)
2020
Charges were brought against Ms. Maxwell as a result of the New York investigation.
New York
Relationships (1)
The document discusses the separate indictments of Epstein (2019) and Ms. Maxwell (2020) stemming from related investigations, and the defense's need to explain why she was not charged with him initially.
Key Quotes (4)
"remarkably uncritical attitude"Source
— police
(Describing the attitude of the police during an investigation, which revealed inconsistencies.)
DOJ-OGR-00005498.jpg
Quote #1
"undermined the ... integrity of the investigation"Source
— police
(The result of the police's "remarkably uncritical attitude" during an investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00005498.jpg
Quote #2
"extensive side-show"Source
— government
(A phrase the government allegedly used to describe a discussion of various investigations, which the defense calls hypocritical.)
DOJ-OGR-00005498.jpg
Quote #3
"reach[] back 20 years"Source
— government
(A quote from a government motion (Mot. at 27) describing the timeframe of the investigations.)
DOJ-OGR-00005498.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,360 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 43 of 69
inconsistencies,” revealed a “remarkably uncritical attitude” on the part of the police which “undermined the ... integrity of the investigation”).
Ms. Maxwell cannot pursue this legitimate line of argument without eliciting evidence of the NPA, the government’s decision not to charge her in the initial 2019 indictment, and the death of Epstein. Accordingly, evidence and argument related to these topics is highly relevant and admissible. See id. at 445-49; Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. The probative value of this evidence is also not substantially outweighed by the danger of jury confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The story of how the New York investigation progressed from its opening due to the Miami Herald articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, to the indictment of Epstein in July 2019 and his death in August 2019, and finally to the indictment of Ms. Maxwell in June 2020 is simple and straightforward. The government has a dim view of the average juror’s intelligence if it does not think the jury can follow that there were two separate investigations—one in Florida that ended in 2008 with the NPA, and one in New York that led to charges against Epstein in 2019 and Ms. Maxwell in 2020. See Mot. at 27-28. That is not hard to follow.22 Accordingly, this evidence should not be excluded because of an unfounded concern about juror confusion.23
22 It is particularly hypocritical of the government to argue that a discussion of the various investigations would create an “extensive side-show” because the investigations “reach[] back 20 years.” Mot. at 27. If the government does not want a discussion about events that took place over 20 years ago, the solution is simple: don’t charge a case where the alleged conduct is over 20 years old.
23 The defense can also elicit this evidence without relying on hearsay. For example, the New York case agents could testify to the fact that Epstein alone was charged in the 2019 indictment, and the fact of his death, both of which are not hearsay. Moreover, we do not intend to ask the New York case agents why Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the 2019 indictment. It is premature, however, to litigate any hearsay issues at this stage. Those issues should await trial.
35
DOJ-OGR-00005498
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document