DOJ-OGR-00020987.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details post-conviction proceedings in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The Defendant, convicted on three conspiracy counts related to a conspiracy with Epstein, argued the counts were multiplicitous and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Government conceded that Counts One and Three were multiplicitous, and the Court agreed not to impose judgment on Count One and also granted the Defendant's motion to not enter judgment on Count Five, finding it multiplicitous with Count Three.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
The Defendant in the case United States v. Maxwell, who was convicted on three conspiracy counts.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as a co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy the Defendant (Maxwell) was charged with.
|
|
| Josephberg |
Mentioned in a cited case, United States v. Josephberg.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, which ruled on the Defendant's motions.
|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecution in the case, which conceded that two of the counts were multiplicitous.
|
Timeline (5 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, the court district where the case opinions were issued.
|
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,166 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page161 of 221
A-361
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 45
A-361
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 45
eighteen, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2. S2 Indictment, Dkt. No. 187.¹
In two prior pretrial motions, the Defendant requested that the Court dismiss two of the three conspiracy counts—that is, Counts One, Three, and Five—as multiplicitous, given that all three were premised on the Defendant’s participation in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein. To punish her for all three counts, she argued, would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In opinions dated April 16, 2021, and August 13, 2021, the Court denied those motions as premature because the Double Jeopardy Clause would prohibit only multiple punishments for the same offense, but not indictments for the same offense. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006)); United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 3591801, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021).
Because the jury convicted the Defendant on all three conspiracy counts, the Defendant now requests that the Court impose judgment on only one of these counts. Maxwell Br. at 19, Dkt. No. 600. The Government concedes that Counts One and Three are multiplicitous and agrees that the Court should not impose judgment on Count One, but it argues that Counts Three and Five are distinct offenses premised on distinct criminal conspiracies, and so the Court should impose judgment on both. Gov. Br. at 24, Dkt. No. 621.
On consent of both parties, the Court will not impose judgment on Count One because it is multiplicitous. For the reasons that follow, the Court further grants the Defendant’s motion to also not enter judgment on Count Count Five because it is also multiplicitous with Count Three.
¹ The original and S2 Indictments also included two counts of perjury. See S2 Indictment ¶¶ 28–31. The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to sever those counts for a separate trial. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
4
DOJ-OGR-00020987
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document