DOJ-OGR-00000134.tif

71a
B. The Government's delay in bringing charges
did not violate due process
"As the Supreme Court stated in United States v.
Marion, the statute of limitations is 'the primary
guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal
charges." United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 751
(2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v.
Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971)). There is a strong
presumption that an indictment filed within the
statute of limitations is valid. To prevail on a claim
that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a
defendant must show both that the Government inten-
tionally delayed bringing charges for an improper
purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the
defendant's ability defend against the charges. See id.
This is a stringent standard. "Thus, while the
[Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on
a contention that at some point the Due Process
Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is
too old, at most the door is barely ajar." DeMichele v.
Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-
91 (2d Cir. 1999).
The Court sees no evidence that the Government's
delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart
Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. However, it is
enough to say that Maxwell does not make the strong
showing of prejudice required to support this sort of
claim. Maxwell contends that the Government's delay
in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests
because potential witnesses have died, others have
forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It
is highly speculative that any of these factors would
make a substantial difference in her case.
Maxwell first points to several potential witnesses
who have passed away. These include Jeffrey Epstein
DOJ-OGR-00000134