DOJ-OGR-00003012.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 78 of 239

to the instant prosecution, is insufficient to show actual prejudice. . . . The fact that evidence may
be lost or destroyed during the pre-indictment stage is inherent in any delay, no matter what the
duration. Furthermore, there has been no allegation in this case that the destruction of the records
was deliberate on the part of either the government or trustee.” (internal citations omitted)).

Lastly, the defendant contends that prejudicial media reporting and inappropriate pre-trial
publicity from at least 2011 through the present has resulted in prejudice to the defendant. (Def.
Mot. at 14). She claims that had the Government brought charges against her between 1996 and
2011, the Government “would have not prevailed,” noting that the defendant’s accusers would not
have been “able to conform their ‘memories’ to the often republished ‘obvious lies.’” (Id. at 15).
This argument, like the others contained in this motion, is steeped in speculation. The defendant
cites not one case in support of her argument that pre-trial publicity can ever establish actual
prejudice, nor does she point to any evidence that the Government fomented such publicity dating
back to 2011. To the extent the defendant is concerned about pretrial publicity, she will have the
opportunity to propose an appropriate examination of potential jurors during voir dire to identify
a panel of impartial jurors who have not been prejudiced by any publicity this case may have
garnered.

In short, the defendant’s complaints are nothing more than the type of self-serving, vague,
speculative, and conclusory claims of prejudice that courts have consistently rejected as
insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay.19 The motion should
therefore be denied.

19 The defendant also complains about the Government’s failure to “provide discovery adequate
to fully investigate the extent of the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.” (Def. Mot. 7 at 7). Among the
items the defense complains about not receiving in discovery are the names and dates of birth of
the Minor Victims, the specific location of any overt act, the date of any overt act, any witness
statements, or any corroboration of any allegation in the Indictment. (Id.). As described herein,
see Section X, infra, the Government has made substantial discovery productions pursuant to Rule

51

DOJ-OGR-00003012