DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
730 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government opposition brief)
File Size:
730 KB
Summary
This is a page from a legal filing (Government's opposition) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecution argues that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay—specifically citing dead witnesses, lost Epstein employees, and corrupted memories—are insufficient to warrant dismissal based on established legal precedents. The document cites various case laws (Marion, Snyder, Iannelli, King) to support the position that fading memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in delays and do not automatically constitute actual prejudice.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'The defendant' and 'she'. The case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE corresponds to US v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate of Defendant |
Mentioned in the context of 'unnamed Epstein employees' having been lost.
|
| Pierre-Louis | Case Citation Name |
Cited in legal precedent regarding lost testimony.
|
| Sprouts | Case Citation Name |
Cited in legal precedent.
|
| Marion | Case Citation Name |
Cited in legal precedent regarding pre-indictment delay.
|
| Snyder | Case Citation Name |
Cited in legal precedent.
|
| Iannelli | Case Citation Name |
Cited in legal precedent.
|
| King | Case Citation Name |
Cited in legal precedent.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
implied by case header
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by footer 'DOJ-OGR'
|
|
| 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in legal precedents (2d Cir.)
|
|
| 8th Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in legal precedents (8th Cir.)
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Defendant claims prejudice because 'unnamed Epstein employees have been lost'
Key Quotes (3)
"she contends that, as a result of the passage of time, four witnesses have died, unnamed Epstein employees have been 'lost,' unspecified witnesses now have 'failed or corrupted' memories, and records have been lost or destroyed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
Quote #1
"Faded memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in any delay, even if justifiable."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
Quote #2
"To merit dismissal a defendant must demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to his ability to defend himself."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,142 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 71 of 239
would have found the witness credible” (citations omitted)). “Courts have held that ‘the defendant
also has the burden of showing that 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)).
also has the burden of showing that 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)).
The vast majority of pre-indictment delay cases fail on the first prong. See, e.g., Marion,
404 U.S. at 324-25 (fading witness memories insufficient; “no one suggests that every delay-
caused detriment to a defendant’s case should abort a criminal prosecution”); United States v.
Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment
insufficient prejudice); United States v. Iannelli, 461 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1972) (unavailability
of witnesses insufficient prejudice); United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122, 130-31 (2d Cir. 1977)
(death of witness and missing documents insufficient prejudice); Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140,
at *4-5 (death of a defense witness and defendant’s own memory issues insufficient prejudice).
404 U.S. at 324-25 (fading witness memories insufficient; “no one suggests that every delay-
caused detriment to a defendant’s case should abort a criminal prosecution”); United States v.
Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment
insufficient prejudice); United States v. Iannelli, 461 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1972) (unavailability
of witnesses insufficient prejudice); United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122, 130-31 (2d Cir. 1977)
(death of witness and missing documents insufficient prejudice); Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140,
at *4-5 (death of a defense witness and defendant’s own memory issues insufficient prejudice).
2. Discussion
The defendant points to at least four ways in which she claims the passage of time
prejudiced her defense, but none of her hypothetical claims of prejudice withstand scrutiny. In
particular, she contends that, as a result of the passage of time, four witnesses have died, unnamed
Epstein employees have been “lost,” unspecified witnesses now have “failed or corrupted”
memories, and records have been lost or destroyed. She further contends that these collectively
demonstrate actual prejudice. (Def. Mot. 7 at 8-14). None has merit, individually or collectively.
prejudiced her defense, but none of her hypothetical claims of prejudice withstand scrutiny. In
particular, she contends that, as a result of the passage of time, four witnesses have died, unnamed
Epstein employees have been “lost,” unspecified witnesses now have “failed or corrupted”
memories, and records have been lost or destroyed. She further contends that these collectively
demonstrate actual prejudice. (Def. Mot. 7 at 8-14). None has merit, individually or collectively.
With respect to the first three arguments, the fact that certain witnesses cannot testify
because of their deaths or failed memories does not compel a finding of actual prejudice. “Faded
memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in any delay, even if justifiable. To merit dismissal
a defendant must demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to his ability to defend himself.”
because of their deaths or failed memories does not compel a finding of actual prejudice. “Faded
memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in any delay, even if justifiable. To merit dismissal
a defendant must demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to his ability to defend himself.”
44
DOJ-OGR-00003005
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document