DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
733 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (appellate appendix)
File Size:
733 KB
Summary
This document contains a summary of court rulings denying several motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, including motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy, untimeliness, multiplicity, and pre-indictment delay. It also addresses a motion to compel statements from 'Minor-Victim 4' and reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in the Southern District of New York.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Moving to dismiss various counts and compel evidence; arguments denied by the court.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased Co-conspirator |
Mentioned regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its applicability to Maxwell's charges.
|
| Minor-Victim 4 | Victim/Witness |
Maxwell moved to compel production of statements from this individual as Brady material.
|
| AJN (Alison J. Nathan) | Judge |
Referenced in the case citation United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Southern District of New York (implied by citation); ruling on Maxwell's motions.
|
|
| The Government |
Opposing Maxwell's motions.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida |
Party to the original NPA with Jeffrey Epstein.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in footer stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the U.S. Attorney's Office that signed Epstein's NPA.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, venue of the current trial (United States v. Maxwell).
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell attempts to use Epstein's NPA to bar charges against herself.
Maxwell seeks statements of Minor-Victim 4 as Brady material.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Court concludes that Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for these offenses and therefore her prosecution on these counts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
Quote #1
"Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2 indictment"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court understands the primary purpose of Maxwell’s renewed motion to be to preserve these arguments for appellate review"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,502 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page193 of 208
A-189
A-189
• Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six on the grounds that prosecuting her on those counts would violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court concludes that Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for these offenses and therefore her prosecution on these counts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six as untimely. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the Government brought the charges within the applicable statute of limitations.
• Maxwell moves to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous. The Court again determines, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that this motion is premature and denies it without prejudice for renewal at trial.
• Maxwell moves to dismiss the S2 indictment for pre-indictment delay. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has not established that she suffered prejudice and therefore any delay has not violated her rights to due process.
• Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars related to counts five and six because they are too vague, and in particular do not provide specific dates. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the charges are sufficiently specific.
• Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of "Minor-Victim 4" in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and therefore immediate disclosure is not warranted.
• Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six as untimely. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the Government brought the charges within the applicable statute of limitations.
• Maxwell moves to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous. The Court again determines, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that this motion is premature and denies it without prejudice for renewal at trial.
• Maxwell moves to dismiss the S2 indictment for pre-indictment delay. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has not established that she suffered prejudice and therefore any delay has not violated her rights to due process.
• Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars related to counts five and six because they are too vague, and in particular do not provide specific dates. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the charges are sufficiently specific.
• Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of "Minor-Victim 4" in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and therefore immediate disclosure is not warranted.
I. Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2 indictment
In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order on Maxwell’s first set of pretrial motions, the Court held that the non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar the charges against Maxwell in the S1 superseding indictment. See United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 1518675, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021). Maxwell now renews those arguments for the charges in the S2 superseding indictment. The Court understands the primary purpose of Maxwell’s renewed motion to be to preserve these arguments for appellate review, and the Court denies the
2
DOJ-OGR-00020811
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document