DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
44.5 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
5
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court filing
File Size:
44.5 KB
Summary
This document discusses legal arguments made by Maxwell to dismiss an indictment, focusing on the unavailability of witnesses and the impact of pretrial publicity. It references the Palm Beach investigation into Epstein and questions the credibility of potential testimony from Epstein himself, while noting that Maxwell's reputation has shifted from Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant / Subject of legal discussion |
Maxwell believes one individual worked with alleged victims; Maxwell contends potential witnesses would have provided...
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation / Co-conspirator |
Police detective investigated Epstein in Florida; testimony from Epstein credible; Maxwell's friend, now co-conspirator.
|
| his mother | Unspecified individual related to Maxwell |
One individual Maxwell believes worked with alleged victims, along with his mother.
|
| a police detective | Investigator |
Investigated Epstein in Florida; testimony suggested by Maxwell.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ-OGR |
Document origin/tracking
|
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Epstein investigation location
|
|
|
Palm Beach investigation
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, referenced in legal citation
|
|
|
7th Circuit Court, referenced in legal citation
|
|
|
2nd Circuit Court, referenced in legal citation
|
Relationships (3)
Maxwell's reputation transformed from that of Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator.
one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged victims... and his mother
a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida
Key Quotes (5)
"Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
Quote #1
"The testimony she suggests the detective might have offered—that witnesses in the Palm Beach investigation did not identify Maxwell by name—is propensity evidence that does nothing to establish her innocence of the charged offenses."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
Quote #2
"There are also serious doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
Quote #3
"Maxwell's arguments that the indictment should be dismissed because of the possibility of missing witnesses, failing memories, or lost records fail for similar reasons."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
Quote #4
"Maxwell contends that lengthy public interest in this case has transformed her reputation from that of Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,865 characters)
72a
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
provides no indication of what many of these potential
witnesses might have testified to. The testimony she
suggests the detective might have offered that
witnesses in the Palm Beach investigation did not
identify Maxwell by name is propensity evidence
that does nothing to establish her innocence of the
charged offenses. There are also serious doubts under
all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would
have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he
had waived his right against self-incrimination and
testified on her behalf. See United States v. Spears, 159
F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999).
Maxwell's arguments that the indictment should be
dismissed because of the possibility of missing witnesses,
failing memories, or lost records fail for similar reasons.
These are difficulties that arise in any case where
there is extended delay in bringing a prosecution, and
they do not justify dismissing an indictment. United
States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325–26 (1971); see United
States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979).
Finally, the Court finds no substantial prejudice
from the pretrial publicity this case has garnered.
Maxwell contends that lengthy public interest in this
case has transformed her reputation from that of
Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator. And she also
DOJ-OGR-00000135
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
provides no indication of what many of these potential
witnesses might have testified to. The testimony she
suggests the detective might have offered that
witnesses in the Palm Beach investigation did not
identify Maxwell by name is propensity evidence
that does nothing to establish her innocence of the
charged offenses. There are also serious doubts under
all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would
have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he
had waived his right against self-incrimination and
testified on her behalf. See United States v. Spears, 159
F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999).
Maxwell's arguments that the indictment should be
dismissed because of the possibility of missing witnesses,
failing memories, or lost records fail for similar reasons.
These are difficulties that arise in any case where
there is extended delay in bringing a prosecution, and
they do not justify dismissing an indictment. United
States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325–26 (1971); see United
States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979).
Finally, the Court finds no substantial prejudice
from the pretrial publicity this case has garnered.
Maxwell contends that lengthy public interest in this
case has transformed her reputation from that of
Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator. And she also
DOJ-OGR-00000135
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document