DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
576 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (appellate record)
File Size:
576 KB
Summary
This page is part of a legal opinion (page 10 of the specific order, page 201 of the appellate appendix) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five of the S2 indictment (sex trafficking conspiracy) and rejects her argument that the Government's delay in bringing charges violated due process. The Court rules that Maxwell failed to show actual prejudice resulting from the delay.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal motions; arguing that charges should be dismissed due to delay and duplication.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposing party to Maxwell; accused by Maxwell of improper pretrial delay.
|
|
| The Court |
Denying Maxwell's motions.
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated in footer 'DOJ-OGR' (Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services/Office of General Co...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
Maxwell argues government delay prejudiced her defense; Court rules in favor of Government.
Key Quotes (5)
"Maxwell’s motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the Court’s April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government’s delay in bringing the charges did not violate due process"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
Quote #3
"It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
Quote #4
"neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,913 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page201 of 208
A-197
A-197
prejudice. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *14. In the instant motion, Maxwell similarly argues
that count five of the S2 indictment, the sex trafficking conspiracy charge, is duplicative of either
counts one or three. Maxwell’s motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the
Court’s April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order.
that count five of the S2 indictment, the sex trafficking conspiracy charge, is duplicative of either
counts one or three. Maxwell’s motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the
Court’s April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order.
V. The Government’s delay in bringing the charges did not violate due process
Maxwell also renews her motion to dismiss the S2 indictment based on alleged improper
pretrial delay. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court denied Maxwell’s motion,
concluding that her efforts to show actual and substantial prejudice fell far short of the “stringent
standard” necessary to prevail on such a claim. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *9. Maxwell’s
motion to dismiss the S2 on these grounds fails for the same reasons. As before, nothing in the
record indicates that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart
Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. However, it is sufficient to conclude that Maxwell does
not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell
contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because
potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It
is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.
pretrial delay. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court denied Maxwell’s motion,
concluding that her efforts to show actual and substantial prejudice fell far short of the “stringent
standard” necessary to prevail on such a claim. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *9. Maxwell’s
motion to dismiss the S2 on these grounds fails for the same reasons. As before, nothing in the
record indicates that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart
Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. However, it is sufficient to conclude that Maxwell does
not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell
contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because
potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It
is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.
The Court thus again concludes for the reasons stated in the April 16, 2021 Opinion &
Order, that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government’s delay in
bringing charges. She may renew her motion if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On
the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges
here.
Order, that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government’s delay in
bringing charges. She may renew her motion if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On
the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges
here.
10
DOJ-OGR-00020819
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document