DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
683 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government response)
File Size:
683 KB
Summary
This document is page 23 of a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing against her motions to dismiss. The prosecution asserts that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida does not apply to the current indictment or district, and denies her request for discovery due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the document argues that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 because the statute allows prosecution for child sexual abuse offenses as long as the victims are alive, rejecting Maxwell's argument that the statute applies only prospectively.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referenced as 'Maxwell' and 'the defendant'; the document argues against her motions regarding the NPA and statute of...
|
| Urena | Case Citation Subject |
Referenced in case law 'United States v. Urena'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; mentioned regarding promises allegedly made in ...
|
|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; mentioned regarding an investigation surrounding the NPA.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned regarding the legislative intent of the statute of limitations extension.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York; mentioned in case citation and implied as 'this District'.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice; appears in the footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Associated with the USAO-SDFL and the original NPA.
|
|
|
Implied as 'this District' where the current indictment is held.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell claims USAO-SDFL made promises in the NPA; the document refutes this applies to the current case.
Key Quotes (5)
"claiming that the USAO-SDFL made promises that were not contained in the NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
Quote #1
"In the absence of any such evidence—and in the face of substantial contrary evidence gathered in the civil litigation and OPR investigation—the Court has no obligation to conduct a hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
Quote #2
"A defendant seeking discovery under Rule 16 “must make a prima facie showing of materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
Quote #3
"Counts One through Four are timely charged because the applicable limitations period, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), permits prosecution for offenses “involving the sexual or physical abuse… of a child” at any time “during the life of the child,” and each of the victims identified in the Indictment remains alive."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
Quote #4
"In effect, the defendant’s motion asks this Court to break new ground, and become the first court to hold that Section 3283 applies only prospectively."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,996 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 50 of 239
claiming that the USAO-SDFL made promises that were not contained in the NPA. Nor has she
pointed to anything in the extensive record of either the OPR investigation or the civil litigation
surrounding the NPA that would suggest that the NPA applies to this District, or to the crimes in
the Indictment, or to Maxwell. In the absence of any such evidence—and in the face of substantial
contrary evidence gathered in the civil litigation and OPR investigation—the Court has no
obligation to conduct a hearing.
pointed to anything in the extensive record of either the OPR investigation or the civil litigation
surrounding the NPA that would suggest that the NPA applies to this District, or to the crimes in
the Indictment, or to Maxwell. In the absence of any such evidence—and in the face of substantial
contrary evidence gathered in the civil litigation and OPR investigation—the Court has no
obligation to conduct a hearing.
For similar reasons, the defendant’s motion for discovery should be denied. To the extent
the defendant seeks discovery under Rule 16, she has failed to meet her burden. A defendant
seeking discovery under Rule 16 “must make a prima facie showing of materiality and must offer
more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.” United States v.
Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). Here, the defendant has
offered nothing more than her conjecture that some unspecified evidence might exist. The motion
should be denied.
the defendant seeks discovery under Rule 16, she has failed to meet her burden. A defendant
seeking discovery under Rule 16 “must make a prima facie showing of materiality and must offer
more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.” United States v.
Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). Here, the defendant has
offered nothing more than her conjecture that some unspecified evidence might exist. The motion
should be denied.
II. The Indictment Is Timely
Counts One through Four are timely charged because the applicable limitations period, 18
U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), permits prosecution for offenses “involving the sexual or physical abuse…
of a child” at any time “during the life of the child,” and each of the victims identified in the
Indictment remains alive. Maxwell contends that Section 3283 should not be applied to conduct
that predated its amendment in 2003 (Def. Mot. 2), but that argument is contrary to the text of the
statute, Congress’s clear intent when extending the statute of limitations, and the decisions of other
circuits and district courts in this Circuit. In effect, the defendant’s motion asks this Court to break
new ground, and become the first court to hold that Section 3283 applies only prospectively.
U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), permits prosecution for offenses “involving the sexual or physical abuse…
of a child” at any time “during the life of the child,” and each of the victims identified in the
Indictment remains alive. Maxwell contends that Section 3283 should not be applied to conduct
that predated its amendment in 2003 (Def. Mot. 2), but that argument is contrary to the text of the
statute, Congress’s clear intent when extending the statute of limitations, and the decisions of other
circuits and district courts in this Circuit. In effect, the defendant’s motion asks this Court to break
new ground, and become the first court to hold that Section 3283 applies only prospectively.
23
DOJ-OGR-00002984
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document