DOJ-OGR-00002291.jpg
770 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion / memorandum of law
File Size:
770 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing argues that Perjury Counts against Ms. Maxwell should not be joined with Mann Act Counts under Rule 8(a) because the connection is illogical, and that they should be severed under Rule 14(a) to prevent substantial prejudice. The defense contends that the perjury charges stem from confusing questions in a separate defamation lawsuit and that a joint trial would improperly force the re-litigation of that civil matter.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | ||
| Virginia Roberts Giuffre |
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | ||
| IRS | ||
| Court |
Timeline (3 events)
Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six
defamation action
joint trial
Relationships (2)
→
→
→
→
Key Quotes (3)
"There were no “crimes” concealed by Ms. Maxwell’s answers which were both true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff’s lawyers."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002291.jpg
Quote #1
"Accordingly, the government’s purported connection between the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts defies logic and is insufficient to permit joinder under Rule 8(a)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002291.jpg
Quote #2
"A joint trial of the Perjury Counts will require a full-blown re-litigation of the defamation action, which will result in a collateral matter taking over the trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002291.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,247 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 13 of 19
(Indictment ¶ 2; accord id. ¶ 8.) As discussed in Ms. Maxwell’s Memorandum in Support of her
Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, because the statements at issue are not perjurious, the
questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed. None of the questions, or
any answers, were material to any issue in the defamation action. There were no “crimes”
concealed by Ms. Maxwell’s answers which were both true and reflective of the poor
questioning by the plaintiff’s lawyers. The Government does not articulate how statements like:
“I don’t know what you are talking about,” an admission that Ms. Maxwell “could not make a
list” upon demand, her lack of knowledge about undefined “devices” or “toys” could possibly
“conceal her crimes.” Accordingly, the government’s purported connection between the Perjury
Counts and the Mann Act Counts defies logic and is insufficient to permit joinder under Rule
8(a). See Botti, 2009 WL 3157582, at *5 (joinder improper due to “speculative nature of the
link” between structuring counts alleging false statements to IRS agent and separate corruption
counts); Mitan, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (joinder improper where alleged perjury arose from
false statement in connection with defendant’s bail application, not an attempt to “cover up”
underlying scheme to defraud with which defendant was charged).
Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, because the statements at issue are not perjurious, the
questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed. None of the questions, or
any answers, were material to any issue in the defamation action. There were no “crimes”
concealed by Ms. Maxwell’s answers which were both true and reflective of the poor
questioning by the plaintiff’s lawyers. The Government does not articulate how statements like:
“I don’t know what you are talking about,” an admission that Ms. Maxwell “could not make a
list” upon demand, her lack of knowledge about undefined “devices” or “toys” could possibly
“conceal her crimes.” Accordingly, the government’s purported connection between the Perjury
Counts and the Mann Act Counts defies logic and is insufficient to permit joinder under Rule
8(a). See Botti, 2009 WL 3157582, at *5 (joinder improper due to “speculative nature of the
link” between structuring counts alleging false statements to IRS agent and separate corruption
counts); Mitan, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (joinder improper where alleged perjury arose from
false statement in connection with defendant’s bail application, not an attempt to “cover up”
underlying scheme to defraud with which defendant was charged).
B. The Perjury Counts Should Be Severed Under Rule 14(a) Because Their
Inclusion Will Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial
Inclusion Will Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial
Even if the Court finds that joinder is proper under Rule 8, the Court should nevertheless
exercise its discretion to sever Counts Five and Six under Rule 14(a) because of the substantial
prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and these proceedings. A joint trial of the Perjury Counts will require
a full-blown re-litigation of the defamation action, which will result in a collateral matter taking
over the trial. Substantial amounts of evidence that would be inadmissible and irrelevant as to
the Mann Act Counts will, necessarily, be presented in order to prove the Perjury Counts. For
example, there will need to be a collateral trial on whether Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s statements
exercise its discretion to sever Counts Five and Six under Rule 14(a) because of the substantial
prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and these proceedings. A joint trial of the Perjury Counts will require
a full-blown re-litigation of the defamation action, which will result in a collateral matter taking
over the trial. Substantial amounts of evidence that would be inadmissible and irrelevant as to
the Mann Act Counts will, necessarily, be presented in order to prove the Perjury Counts. For
example, there will need to be a collateral trial on whether Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s statements
9
DOJ-OGR-00002291
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document