DOJ-OGR-00004725.jpg
724 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (government response)
File Size:
724 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a Government filing (Document 295) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on May 25, 2021. The Government argues that Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on pre-indictment delay should be denied because she failed to prove prejudice or improper tactical motives by the prosecution. The text specifically addresses the 'S2 Indictment,' noting that new charges involving 'Minor Victim-4' were added based on new evidence unavailable previously, refuting claims of bad faith delay.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the defendant' and 'Ms. Maxwell'; filing argues against her motion to dismiss based on pre-indictment...
|
| Minor Victim-4 | Victim |
An additional minor victim mentioned in the S2 Indictment, based on new evidence.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; arguing that the delay was not improper and based on new evidence.
|
|
| United States District Court |
S.D.N.Y. (Southern District of New York) mentioned in citation.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007
Date referenced by defense regarding when government allegedly knew about conduct.
N/A
Government
Ghislaine Maxwell
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (legal jurisdiction).
|
Relationships (1)
S2 Indictment added counts relating to the defendant’s abuse of an additional minor victim, Minor Victim-4
Key Quotes (3)
"The defendant has not remotely carried her 'heavy burden' of proof."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004725.jpg
Quote #1
"Her renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004725.jpg
Quote #2
"the Government obtained the S2 Indictment—which added counts relating to the defendant’s abuse of an additional minor victim, Minor Victim-4—based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004725.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,121 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 18 of 26
her interests or would have made a “substantial difference” in her case. (Id. at 17). In her current
motion, the defendant offers no additional factual claims in support of her argument that the
passage of time has prejudiced her defense. She instead refers the Court back to her prior
hypothetical, vague, and conclusory claims of prejudice that do not withstand scrutiny. The
defendant has not remotely carried her “heavy burden” of proof. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. Her
renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment
delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.
motion, the defendant offers no additional factual claims in support of her argument that the
passage of time has prejudiced her defense. She instead refers the Court back to her prior
hypothetical, vague, and conclusory claims of prejudice that do not withstand scrutiny. The
defendant has not remotely carried her “heavy burden” of proof. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. Her
renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment
delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.
Because the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the
defendant’s specious arguments that the Government’s purpose in any alleged pre-indictment
delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See United States v. Pierre-
Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). In any event, in
denying the defendant’s pre-trial motions filed in January, the Court noted the absence of
“evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart
Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense.” (Apr. Op. at 17). That remains true.
defendant’s specious arguments that the Government’s purpose in any alleged pre-indictment
delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See United States v. Pierre-
Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). In any event, in
denying the defendant’s pre-trial motions filed in January, the Court noted the absence of
“evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart
Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense.” (Apr. Op. at 17). That remains true.
The defendant argues that the “S2 Indictment only compounds [the excessive pre-
indictment delay] issues by charging additional offenses based on alleged conduct that the
government has known about since in or about 2007, which it added for tactical reasons to shore
up its case against Ms. Maxwell.” (Def. Mot. at 22). The defendant’s argument that the
Government acted in bad faith—to the extent she is making such an argument—is based on no
evidence whatsoever, and for good reason: it is not true.
indictment delay] issues by charging additional offenses based on alleged conduct that the
government has known about since in or about 2007, which it added for tactical reasons to shore
up its case against Ms. Maxwell.” (Def. Mot. at 22). The defendant’s argument that the
Government acted in bad faith—to the extent she is making such an argument—is based on no
evidence whatsoever, and for good reason: it is not true.
As the Government has previously explained (see Dkt. No. 199), the Government obtained
the S2 Indictment—which added counts relating to the defendant’s abuse of an additional minor
victim, Minor Victim-4—based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the
the S2 Indictment—which added counts relating to the defendant’s abuse of an additional minor
victim, Minor Victim-4—based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the
14
DOJ-OGR-00004725
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document