DOJ-OGR-00001603.jpg

655 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal memorandum / defense filing
File Size: 655 KB
Summary

This page from a defense filing (dated July 10, 2020) argues for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. Her legal team contends that the government overstates her potential prison sentence (estimating 10 years rather than decades) and asserts the prosecution is legally flawed due to Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations issues regarding conduct from 1994-1997, and weak evidence based on decades-old testimony.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Subject of the bail motion; defense argues her flight risk is low and sentence exposure is overstated.
Jeffrey Epstein Deceased Financier / Co-conspirator
Referenced regarding his 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement which the defense claims covers Maxwell.
Three individuals Witnesses/Accusers
Unnamed individuals whose testimony regarding events from 1994-1997 forms the basis of the government's case.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Department of Justice
Prosecution; party to the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
The Court
Southern District of New York (implied by case number AJN and 'this District').

Timeline (2 events)

1994-1997
Alleged illicit events involving three individuals.
Unknown
2007-09-24
Signing of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Unknown

Locations (1)

Location Context
Refers to the jurisdiction where the case is filed (SDNY).

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Potential Co-conspirator Jeffrey Epstein
Defense claims Maxwell is covered by Epstein's 2007 NPA covering 'any potential co-conspirators'.

Key Quotes (3)

"In fact, her likely total exposure even if she were convicted on all counts is 10 years"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00001603.jpg
Quote #1
"this prosecution is barred by Epstein’s September 24, 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which covers “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00001603.jpg
Quote #2
"the government’s case is based primarily on the testimony of three individuals about events that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago between 1994 and 1997."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00001603.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,876 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 23 of 26
Moreover, the government overstates the potential for Ms. Maxwell to spend “decades in prison” if she is convicted. (Gov. Mem. at 5.) In fact, her likely total exposure even if she were convicted on all counts is 10 years, assuming the Court were to follow the traditional practice in this District and impose concurrent sentences. Although a 10-year sentence would be significant, it is a far cry from the government’s forecast, further demonstrating that the government has not met its burden of showing Ms. Maxwell is an actual risk of flight.
The Government’s Case Is Subject to Significant Challenges. In evaluating the strength of the government’s case, we note that Ms. Maxwell intends to mount several legal challenges to the indictment, including that: (i) this prosecution is barred by Epstein’s September 24, 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which covers “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”; (ii) the conspiracy, enticement of minors, and transporting of minors charges are time-barred and otherwise legally flawed; and (iii) the two perjury charges are subject to dismissal on several legal grounds.15 In addition, as we understand from the face of the indictment, the government’s case is based primarily on the testimony of three individuals about events that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago between 1994 and 1997. It is inherently more difficult to prosecute cases relating to decades-old conduct. These issues further call into question the strength of the government’s case, and provide an independent basis justifying release on bail.
15 The defense is also considering whether the government’s comments in connection with this case conform to Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and whether to seek appropriate relief from the Court.
19
DOJ-OGR-00001603

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document