DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
657 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (page 41 of 45)
File Size:
657 KB
Summary
This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330 and citation 'Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d'); arguing r...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate of Defendant |
Mentioned regarding his 'residency' and his 'office in New York' where flight manifests were delivered.
|
| Larry Visoski | Pilot |
Mentioned as the pilot who delivered flight manifests to Epstein's office in New York.
|
| AJN | Judge |
Initials in case number (Alison J. Nathan), presiding judge.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
Referred to as 'the Government' regarding the decision to delay indictment.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, jurisdiction of the case.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, listed in footer stamp.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Historical context)
Relationships (1)
Text states 'pilot Larry Visoski delivered to Epstein's office in New York'.
Key Quotes (3)
"the Defendant does not explain why the flight manifests that pilot Larry Visoski delivered to Epstein's office in New York have been lost."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
Quote #1
"the Defendant fails to show that the absence of documentary evidence was causally related to any decision by the Government to delay the Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
Quote #2
"vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,220 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page198 of 221
A-398
A-398
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 41 of 45
not entitled to the inference that all absent evidence would have been both favorable and material
to her case. United States v. Berry, No. 20-CR-84 (AJN), 2021 WL 2665585, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
June 29, 2021).
to her case. United States v. Berry, No. 20-CR-84 (AJN), 2021 WL 2665585, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
June 29, 2021).
Third, the Defendant must show that the prejudicial loss of evidence was caused by the
pre-indictment delay. That is, the Defendant must show that the evidence was at one point
available but that at trial "the lost testimony or information was not available through other
means." Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4 (quoting United States v. Sprouts, 282 F.3d
1037, 1041 (8th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Defendant has made only a "bare allegation that [certain]
records have been lost or destroyed," but without explaining when or why they were lost. United
States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Further, the Defendant does not
explain whether any attempt was made to acquire these records either directly or by other means.
It is unexplained, for example, why the Defendant believes that government property records that
at one point existed are no longer available. Or why the Defendant could not have proven
Epstein's residency by any alternative means. Similarly, the Defendant does not explain why the
flight manifests that pilot Larry Visoski delivered to Epstein's office in New York have been
lost. See Trial Tr. at 172. In short, the Defendant fails to show that the absence of documentary
evidence was causally related to any decision by the Government to delay the Indictment.
pre-indictment delay. That is, the Defendant must show that the evidence was at one point
available but that at trial "the lost testimony or information was not available through other
means." Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4 (quoting United States v. Sprouts, 282 F.3d
1037, 1041 (8th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Defendant has made only a "bare allegation that [certain]
records have been lost or destroyed," but without explaining when or why they were lost. United
States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Further, the Defendant does not
explain whether any attempt was made to acquire these records either directly or by other means.
It is unexplained, for example, why the Defendant believes that government property records that
at one point existed are no longer available. Or why the Defendant could not have proven
Epstein's residency by any alternative means. Similarly, the Defendant does not explain why the
flight manifests that pilot Larry Visoski delivered to Epstein's office in New York have been
lost. See Trial Tr. at 172. In short, the Defendant fails to show that the absence of documentary
evidence was causally related to any decision by the Government to delay the Indictment.
For similar reasons, the Defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice by reference to the
deceased potential witnesses. First, "[c]ourts have generally found that vague assertions that a
deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an
indictment for delay." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see, e.g., United States v. Lovasco, 431
U.S. 783, 785–86, 788–90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pre-indictment delay where a material
defense witness had died); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (two
deceased potential witnesses. First, "[c]ourts have generally found that vague assertions that a
deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an
indictment for delay." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see, e.g., United States v. Lovasco, 431
U.S. 783, 785–86, 788–90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pre-indictment delay where a material
defense witness had died); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (two
41
DOJ-OGR-00021024
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document