DOJ-OGR-00002936.jpg
864 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
6
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
864 KB
Summary
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. The filing appears to be a response from the prosecution arguing against motions made by the defendant, Maxwell. Key arguments outlined include the irrelevance of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement to this case, the timeliness of the indictment, and reasons why the defendant's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence should be denied.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its relevance to the current case.
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as "The Defendant" throughout the document. The table of contents outlines arguments against her motions,...
|
| Landgraf |
Referenced as a legal precedent or test ("Step One of Landgraf," "Step Two of Landgraf") related to the retroactivity...
|
|
| McMahon | Chief Judge |
Mentioned as the presiding judge in prior proceedings related to the case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDNY | Government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that commenced the investigation in 2018 and issued subpoenas.
|
Timeline (6 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the argument that Jeffrey Epstein's NPA does not bind this district.
|
Relationships (1)
The document discusses whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) immunizes Maxwell from prosecution, suggesting a connection between their alleged criminal activities.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,245 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 239
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 3
I. Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case ...................... 3
A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York ......................................... 4
1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts ........ 5
2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts ............ 9
B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution ............................................ 15
1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 .......................... 15
2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell...................................... 17
C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing ............. 21
A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York ......................................... 4
1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts ........ 5
2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts ............ 9
B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution ............................................ 15
1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 .......................... 15
2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell...................................... 17
C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing ............. 21
II. The Indictment Is Timely ................................................................................................. 23
A. Statutory Background ................................................................................................... 24
B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively .................................... 26
1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf............................................. 28
2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf............................................. 32
C. The Defendant’s Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors ................................... 36
A. Statutory Background ................................................................................................... 24
B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively .................................... 26
1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf............................................. 28
2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf............................................. 32
C. The Defendant’s Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors ................................... 36
III. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied........................................................................................... 41
A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice ............... 42
1. Applicable Law........................................................................................................ 42
2. Discussion................................................................................................................. 44
B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish That the Government Delayed the Indictment for An Improper Purpose .................................................................................................... 52
1. Applicable Law........................................................................................................ 52
2. Discussion................................................................................................................. 54
A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice ............... 42
1. Applicable Law........................................................................................................ 42
2. Discussion................................................................................................................. 44
B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish That the Government Delayed the Indictment for An Improper Purpose .................................................................................................... 52
1. Applicable Law........................................................................................................ 52
2. Discussion................................................................................................................. 54
IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant’s Motions to Suppress.................................... 59
A. Factual Background ..................................................................................................... 61
1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell.......................................................................... 61
2. February 2016 Meeting ............................................................................................ 62
3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell .................................................... 64
4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018 .......................... 65
5. The USAO-SDNY’s Subpoenas and Ex Parte Applications for Materials................ 66
6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon............................................................... 68
a. March 26, 2019 Hearing....................................................................................... 68
b. April 9, 2019 Hearing........................................................................................... 70
A. Factual Background ..................................................................................................... 61
1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell.......................................................................... 61
2. February 2016 Meeting ............................................................................................ 62
3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell .................................................... 64
4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018 .......................... 65
5. The USAO-SDNY’s Subpoenas and Ex Parte Applications for Materials................ 66
6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon............................................................... 68
a. March 26, 2019 Hearing....................................................................................... 68
b. April 9, 2019 Hearing........................................................................................... 70
i
DOJ-OGR-00002936
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document