DOJ-OGR-00003006.jpg
768 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (united states v. ghislaine maxwell)
File Size:
768 KB
Summary
A page from a court filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against Maxwell's motion claiming prejudice due to pre-indictment delay, specifically rejecting her assertion that the deaths of potential witnesses (Jeffrey Epstein, his mother, Michael Casey, and Detective Recarey) harmed her defense. The court/prosecution argues it is highly speculative to assume Epstein would have waived his Fifth Amendment rights to testify in Maxwell's favor and be found credible by a jury.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'The defendant' and 'Maxwell'; claiming prejudice due to unavailable witnesses.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Unavailable Witness / Co-conspirator |
Deceased; defendant claims he would have provided exculpatory testimony.
|
| Epstein's mother | Unavailable Witness |
Listed as unavailable due to pre-indictment delay.
|
| Michael Casey | Unavailable Witness / Agent |
Described as 'the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1'.
|
| Minor Victim-1 | Victim |
Associated with Michael Casey.
|
| Joseph Recarey | Detective / Unavailable Witness |
Palm Beach Police Department Detective; listed as unavailable.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Palm Beach Police Department |
Employer of Detective Joseph Recarey.
|
|
| United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) |
Jurisdiction implied by case citation and header.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated in footer identifier DOJ-OGR-00003006.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-04-16
Filing date of Document 204 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the Police Department mentioned.
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell argues Epstein would have testified she did not engage in criminal activity.
Described as 'the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Her speculative assertions simply do not rise to that level."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003006.jpg
Quote #1
"She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein 'would have' testified that the defendant did not engage in the criminal activity with which she is charged."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003006.jpg
Quote #2
"To credit Maxwell’s argument is to assume that Epstein... would have taken the stand, would not have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, and would have provided testimony that exculpated Maxwell"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003006.jpg
Quote #3
"This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003006.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,272 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 72 of 239
United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such
a showing. Her speculative assertions simply do not rise to that level.
a showing. Her speculative assertions simply do not rise to that level.
The defendant first claims she has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of pre-
indictment delay due to the unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein’s mother, Michael Casey (the
alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey.
She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein “would have”
testified that the defendant did not engage in the criminal activity with which she is charged. (Def.
Mot. 7 at 8). That assertion is speculative at best, and the law is clear that “proof of prejudice must
be definite and not speculative.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657
(finding that “perceived prejudice is speculative” where there was “no way of knowing what [the
unavailable witness’s] testimony would have been”). To credit Maxwell’s argument is to assume
that Epstein, after being indicted with federal sex trafficking charges, would have taken the stand,
would not have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, and would have provided testimony that
exculpated Maxwell, which a jury would have credited in the face of contradictory trial evidence.
This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the
burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 (“[A] defendant must do
more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness’ testimony would have
helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-
examination, and that the jury would have found the witness credible.” (citations omitted)); see
also United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis
must consider whether the missing witness “would have withstood cross-examination,” whether
the jury would have found him a “credible witness,” and whether the testimony, when compared
to other trial evidence “would affect the trial outcome” (internal quotation marks and citations
indictment delay due to the unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein’s mother, Michael Casey (the
alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey.
She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein “would have”
testified that the defendant did not engage in the criminal activity with which she is charged. (Def.
Mot. 7 at 8). That assertion is speculative at best, and the law is clear that “proof of prejudice must
be definite and not speculative.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657
(finding that “perceived prejudice is speculative” where there was “no way of knowing what [the
unavailable witness’s] testimony would have been”). To credit Maxwell’s argument is to assume
that Epstein, after being indicted with federal sex trafficking charges, would have taken the stand,
would not have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, and would have provided testimony that
exculpated Maxwell, which a jury would have credited in the face of contradictory trial evidence.
This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the
burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 (“[A] defendant must do
more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness’ testimony would have
helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-
examination, and that the jury would have found the witness credible.” (citations omitted)); see
also United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis
must consider whether the missing witness “would have withstood cross-examination,” whether
the jury would have found him a “credible witness,” and whether the testimony, when compared
to other trial evidence “would affect the trial outcome” (internal quotation marks and citations
45
DOJ-OGR-00003006
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document