DOJ-OGR-00002314(1).jpg
668 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion to dismiss / request for bill of particulars)
File Size:
668 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Superseding Indictment is vague, failing to identify specific accusers or dates beyond the range of 1994-1997. The filing requests that the Court dismiss Counts One through Four or force the Government to provide a Bill of Particulars, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) and Constitutional precedents regarding due process.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the indictment who is claiming innocence and requesting dismissal or specific details of charges.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
The entity bringing the charges (Indictment) against Maxwell.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Addressed to dismiss counts or direct government action.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by 'DOJ' in footer ID.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1994-1997
The only specific years mentioned in the Superseding Indictment regarding the alleged conspiracy.
Not specified
Relationships (1)
Maxwell's defense is arguing against the Government's indictment and refusal to disclose evidence.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) in this case is remarkable because it fails to identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002314(1).jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell is innocent and should not have to guess about what evidence the Government claims warrants her continual incarceration but stubbornly refuses to identify or disclose."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002314(1).jpg
Quote #2
"The Court should dismiss Counts One through Four of the Indictment or direct the Government to provide Ms. Maxwell with proper discovery and a Bill of Particulars."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002314(1).jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,901 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 124 Filed 01/25/21 Page 4 of 8
INTRODUCTION
The Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) in this case is remarkable because it fails to
identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or
when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in
the Indictment are the years 1994-1997, often combined with phrases such as “from at least in or
about” and “beginning in at least.” This mishmash of a pleading was carefully crafted to not
provide Ms. Maxwell with the necessary information to adequately investigate these false
allegations and prepare for trial. Ms. Maxwell is innocent and should not have to guess about
what evidence the Government claims warrants her continual incarceration but stubbornly
refuses to identify or disclose. The Court should dismiss Counts One through Four of the
Indictment or direct the Government to provide Ms. Maxwell with proper discovery and a Bill of
Particulars.
identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or
when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in
the Indictment are the years 1994-1997, often combined with phrases such as “from at least in or
about” and “beginning in at least.” This mishmash of a pleading was carefully crafted to not
provide Ms. Maxwell with the necessary information to adequately investigate these false
allegations and prepare for trial. Ms. Maxwell is innocent and should not have to guess about
what evidence the Government claims warrants her continual incarceration but stubbornly
refuses to identify or disclose. The Court should dismiss Counts One through Four of the
Indictment or direct the Government to provide Ms. Maxwell with proper discovery and a Bill of
Particulars.
ARGUMENT
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) requires, among other things, that an
indictment contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts
constituting the offense charged . . . .” There are two constitutional requirements for an
indictment to be sufficient: (1) it must contain “the elements of the offense charged and fairly
inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend,” and (2) it must enable the
defendant “to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.”
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (quoting Hamling v. United States,
418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). An indictment that fails to allege the essential elements of the crime
charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S.
749, 760-61 (1962).
indictment contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts
constituting the offense charged . . . .” There are two constitutional requirements for an
indictment to be sufficient: (1) it must contain “the elements of the offense charged and fairly
inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend,” and (2) it must enable the
defendant “to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.”
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (quoting Hamling v. United States,
418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). An indictment that fails to allege the essential elements of the crime
charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S.
749, 760-61 (1962).
1
DOJ-OGR-00002314
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document