DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
656 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court opinion/order)
File Size:
656 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 657 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) claim that delay in prosecution caused prejudice to her defense. The text argues the defendant failed to prove substantial prejudice but outlines her specific claims regarding lost evidence, including flight records, financial documents, phone records, and property records. It specifically names deceased witnesses the defense claims were unavailable: architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the legal ruling (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN)
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased Associate |
Referenced regarding lost records, funds, and properties
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Mentioned in Trial Transcript at 354
|
| Kate | Witness/Victim |
Mentioned in Trial Transcript at 1245
|
| Carolyn | Witness/Victim |
Mentioned in Trial Transcript at 1680-84
|
| Albert Pinto | Architect |
Deceased witness; built/renovated Epstein's residences
|
| Roger Salhi | Architect |
Deceased witness; built/renovated Epstein's residences
|
| Sally Markham | Property Manager |
Deceased witness; property manager for Epstein
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unspecified
Renovation of Epstein's residences
Florida, New York, New Mexico
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Epstein residence renovated by architects
|
|
|
Location of Epstein residence
|
|
|
Location of Epstein residence
|
Relationships (4)
Reference to 'Defendant’s receipt of funds from Epstein'
Architects that built and renovated Epstein’s residences
Architects that built and renovated Epstein’s residences
Property manager for Epstein
Key Quotes (3)
"The Defendant identifies two major sets of lost evidence that, she says, demonstrate actual prejudice to her defense at trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
Quote #1
"First, she points to documentary evidence absent at trial: (1) flight records... (2) financial documents... (3) a complete set of the Defendant’s phone records; and (4) Epstein’s property records"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
Quote #2
"Second, the Defendant identifies four deceased witnesses: Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects... Sally Markham, a property manager"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,211 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page196 of 221
A-396
A-396
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 39 of 45
the Government’s investigation was relatively recent, e.g., Trial Tr. at 354 (Jane), 1245 (Kate),
1680–84 (Carolyn), suggesting that an earlier prosecution was not feasible.
1680–84 (Carolyn), suggesting that an earlier prosecution was not feasible.
Even on the first step of the inquiry, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that she
suffered actual and substantial prejudice from delay. United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR
541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). Substantial prejudice is a
stringent standard. The Defendant’s “proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.”
United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105–06 (2d Cir. 1982). Actual prejudice “is commonly
demonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness.”
Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. But “claims of mere loss of memory resulting from the passage of
time have been held to be insufficient.” Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. And for any
evidence lost because of delay, the Defendant “must ‘demonstrate how (the loss of evidence) is
prejudicial’ to her.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 106 (quoting United States v. Mays, 549 F.2d 670, 677
(9th Cir. 1977)).
suffered actual and substantial prejudice from delay. United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR
541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). Substantial prejudice is a
stringent standard. The Defendant’s “proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.”
United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105–06 (2d Cir. 1982). Actual prejudice “is commonly
demonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness.”
Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. But “claims of mere loss of memory resulting from the passage of
time have been held to be insufficient.” Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. And for any
evidence lost because of delay, the Defendant “must ‘demonstrate how (the loss of evidence) is
prejudicial’ to her.” Birney, 686 F.2d at 106 (quoting United States v. Mays, 549 F.2d 670, 677
(9th Cir. 1977)).
The Defendant identifies two major sets of lost evidence that, she says, demonstrate
actual prejudice to her defense at trial. First, she points to documentary evidence absent at trial:
(1) flight records, including passenger manifests and records from Epstein’s travel agent, that
may have been more detailed than the flight logs entered at trial; (2) financial documents,
including bank records and credit card records, which would have revealed more about the
Defendant’s receipt of funds from Epstein and could have been used to verify or disprove certain
dates; (3) a complete set of the Defendant’s phone records; and (4) Epstein’s property records for
both his New York and New Mexico residences. Second, the Defendant identifies four deceased
witnesses: Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects that built and renovated Epstein’s residences
in Florida, New York, and New Mexico; Sally Markham, a property manager for Epstein in the
actual prejudice to her defense at trial. First, she points to documentary evidence absent at trial:
(1) flight records, including passenger manifests and records from Epstein’s travel agent, that
may have been more detailed than the flight logs entered at trial; (2) financial documents,
including bank records and credit card records, which would have revealed more about the
Defendant’s receipt of funds from Epstein and could have been used to verify or disprove certain
dates; (3) a complete set of the Defendant’s phone records; and (4) Epstein’s property records for
both his New York and New Mexico residences. Second, the Defendant identifies four deceased
witnesses: Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects that built and renovated Epstein’s residences
in Florida, New York, and New Mexico; Sally Markham, a property manager for Epstein in the
39
DOJ-OGR-00021022
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document