DOJ-OGR-00001962.jpg
638 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
638 KB
Summary
This legal document from December 10, 2020, details a court's analysis of arguments from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The court dismisses the defense's claim that Maxwell is not a flight risk, finding her pre-indictment contact with the government insignificant and distinguishing her case from the legal precedent of U.S. v. Friedman. The court also suggests that Ms. Maxwell may not have fully grasped the severity of the charges against her until after she was formally indicted.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the legal analysis, whose arguments regarding her pre-indictment behavior are being considered by the ...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Epstein prosecution', which may have led Ms. Maxwell to expect she would avoid prose...
|
|
| Friedman | Defendant in a cited case |
The defendant in the case United States v. Friedman, which is being distinguished from Ms. Maxwell's case.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the court | Judicial body |
The entity analyzing the defense's argument and deciding not to give it 'controlling weight'.
|
| the defense | Legal team |
Presented a 'significant argument' on behalf of Ms. Maxwell.
|
| the government | Government agency / Prosecutor |
The entity Ms. Maxwell was in contact with, and the prosecuting party in her case.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1988
The case of United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), cited as a precedent that the court finds distinguishable from Ms. Maxwell's situation.
2d Cir.
The arrest of Ms. Maxwell, the circumstances of which are said to 'cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government'.
The indictment of Ms. Maxwell. The court questions her understanding of the seriousness of the charges prior to this event.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the legal case 'United States v. Friedman'.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details the legal conflict between Ms. Maxwell (represented by 'the defense') and 'the government' (the prosecutor), specifically regarding her actions and state of mind before her indictment.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,682 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 93 Filed 12/10/20 Page 85 of 91
k7e2MaxC kjc
1 significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant
2 consideration, but the court does not give it controlling
3 weight here.
4 To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution,
5 Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution.
6 After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The
7 case was therefore distinguishable from United States v.
8 Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was
9 ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee
10 after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and
11 he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier.
12 Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact
13 with the government means little if that was an effort to stave
14 off indictment and she did not provide the government with her
15 whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may
16 cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the
17 government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and
18 here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may
19 face such serious charges herself may not have set in until
20 after she was actually indicted.
21 Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a
22 speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as
23 clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of
24 the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the
25 strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and
2 consideration, but the court does not give it controlling
3 weight here.
4 To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution,
5 Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution.
6 After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The
7 case was therefore distinguishable from United States v.
8 Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was
9 ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee
10 after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and
11 he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier.
12 Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact
13 with the government means little if that was an effort to stave
14 off indictment and she did not provide the government with her
15 whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may
16 cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the
17 government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and
18 here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may
19 face such serious charges herself may not have set in until
20 after she was actually indicted.
21 Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a
22 speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as
23 clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of
24 the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the
25 strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00001962
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document