DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
724 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion/memorandum of law)
File Size:
724 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal motion filed by the defense in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense argues that all references to 'Accuser-3' in the indictment should be stricken as 'surplusage' because they are irrelevant to the specific charges of interstate transportation for illegal sexual activity and are unduly prejudicial. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) and case law to support the argument that these '20-year-old allegations' do not meet the legal requirements for inclusion.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the indictment; argued to be prejudiced by allegations regarding Accuser-3.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate of Defendant |
Mentioned in relation to 'sexual abuse' of Accuser-3.
|
| Accuser-3 | Alleged Victim |
Subject of allegations the defense seeks to strike from the indictment.
|
| Accuser-1 | Alleged Victim |
Mentioned in comparison to Accuser-3 regarding statutory violations.
|
| Accuser-2 | Alleged Victim |
Mentioned in comparison to Accuser-3 regarding statutory violations.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Cited regarding legal standards for striking surplusage.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (bates stamp source).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Approx. 2001 (implied)
Relationships (2)
Text mentions Maxwell alleged to be 'complicit in Epstein’s sexual abuse'.
Document discusses striking allegations of abuse against Accuser-3 involving Maxwell.
Key Quotes (4)
"All References to Accuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Surplusage."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
Quote #1
"The paragraphs of the indictment alleging that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein’s 'sexual abuse' of Accuser-3 are irrelevant, inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
Quote #2
"The indictment is plainly insufficient to allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice Accuser-3 to travel, or to transport her in interstate or foreign commerce..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
Quote #3
"...alleged 20-year-old allegations involving Accuser-3..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002684.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,082 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 16
§ 2422(a) and § 2423(a) conspiracies to cause individuals to travel in interstate or foreign
commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Id. ¶¶ 11d, 17d.
commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Id. ¶¶ 11d, 17d.
ARGUMENT
I. All References to Accuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Surplusage.
Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), “[u]pon the defendant’s motion, the court may strike
surplusage from the indictment or information.” “This rule introduces a means of protecting the
defendant against immaterial or irrelevant allegations in an indictment or information, which
may, however, be prejudicial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) Advisory Committee’s Note. In the
Second Circuit, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) motions may be granted “where the challenged allegations
are not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and prejudicial.” United States v.
Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted); see United States v.
Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (striking
language stating that defendant “orchestrated four interrelated fraud schemes” where indictment
charged him in only two of those schemes).
surplusage from the indictment or information.” “This rule introduces a means of protecting the
defendant against immaterial or irrelevant allegations in an indictment or information, which
may, however, be prejudicial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) Advisory Committee’s Note. In the
Second Circuit, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) motions may be granted “where the challenged allegations
are not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and prejudicial.” United States v.
Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted); see United States v.
Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (striking
language stating that defendant “orchestrated four interrelated fraud schemes” where indictment
charged him in only two of those schemes).
The paragraphs of the indictment alleging that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein’s
“sexual abuse” of Accuser-3 are irrelevant, inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial. The
indictment is plainly insufficient to allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice Accuser-3 to
travel, or to transport her in interstate or foreign commerce, let alone with the requisite intent.
Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 have nothing to do with whether Ms. Maxwell
conspired to violate § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) with respect to Accuser-1 or Accuser-2. Thus, the
only explanation for the inclusion of alleged 20-year-old allegations involving Accuser-3, and
the characterization of the alleged conduct as “sexual abuse,” is the likelihood that evidence
submitted in support of those allegations will have an unduly prejudicial effect and would not
survive a balancing analysis under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
“sexual abuse” of Accuser-3 are irrelevant, inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial. The
indictment is plainly insufficient to allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice Accuser-3 to
travel, or to transport her in interstate or foreign commerce, let alone with the requisite intent.
Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 have nothing to do with whether Ms. Maxwell
conspired to violate § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) with respect to Accuser-1 or Accuser-2. Thus, the
only explanation for the inclusion of alleged 20-year-old allegations involving Accuser-3, and
the characterization of the alleged conduct as “sexual abuse,” is the likelihood that evidence
submitted in support of those allegations will have an unduly prejudicial effect and would not
survive a balancing analysis under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
5
DOJ-OGR-00002684
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document