DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
678 KB
Extraction Summary
12
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order
File Size:
678 KB
Summary
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the defendant' and 'Maxwell'; the filing argues she failed to establish prejudice regarding pre-indic...
|
| Martinez | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Martinez
|
| Hoo | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Hoo
|
| Alameh | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in Alameh case reference
|
| Cornielle | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in Cornielle case reference
|
| Lawson | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in Lawson case reference
|
| Snyder | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in Snyder case reference
|
| Watson | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Watson
|
| Tanu | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Tanu
|
| Laurenti | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Laurenti
|
| Hillegas | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Hillegas
|
| Pierre-Louis | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in Pierre-Louis case reference
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
The prosecution (United States); argued against the defendant's claims of improper delay.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals; cited for legal precedents regarding 'tactical advantage'.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York; court jurisdiction mentioned in citations.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice; indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Jurisdiction)
|
Relationships (1)
Government arguing against Defendant Maxwell's claims of pre-indictment delay.
Key Quotes (3)
"Because the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the defendant’s specious arguments that the Government’s purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
Quote #1
"the Court noted the absence of 'evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
Quote #2
"Indeed, some version of the phrase 'deliberate device' and 'tactical advantage' is found in nearly every Second Circuit decision on the issue."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,966 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 46 of 51
made any showing that the preindictment delay was an intentional device designed by the
Government to gain a tactical advantage.”); United States v. Martinez, No. 94 Cr. 219 (RPP), 1995
WL 10849, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) (“In order to establish improper delay by the
Government in filing an indictment, a defendant must show that the delay was the result of an
intentional device of the Government to gain tactical advantage over the accused.”) (citing United
States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 671 (2d Cir. 1987))). Indeed, some version of the phrase “deliberate
device” and “tactical advantage” is found in nearly every Second Circuit decision on the issue.
See, e.g., Alameh, 341 F.3d at 176 (“intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage”);
Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (requiring “intentional device” to gain “tactical advantage”); Lawson,
683 F.2d at 694 (delay not “engineered by the government for an improper purpose, such as gaining
a tactical advantage”); Snyder, 668 F.2d at 689; United States v. Watson, 599 F.2d 1149, 1156 n.5
(2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Tanu, 589 F.2d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Laurenti,
581 F.2d 37, 40 n.11 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Hillegas, 578 F.2d 453, 460 (2d Cir. 1978).
Government to gain a tactical advantage.”); United States v. Martinez, No. 94 Cr. 219 (RPP), 1995
WL 10849, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) (“In order to establish improper delay by the
Government in filing an indictment, a defendant must show that the delay was the result of an
intentional device of the Government to gain tactical advantage over the accused.”) (citing United
States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 671 (2d Cir. 1987))). Indeed, some version of the phrase “deliberate
device” and “tactical advantage” is found in nearly every Second Circuit decision on the issue.
See, e.g., Alameh, 341 F.3d at 176 (“intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage”);
Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (requiring “intentional device” to gain “tactical advantage”); Lawson,
683 F.2d at 694 (delay not “engineered by the government for an improper purpose, such as gaining
a tactical advantage”); Snyder, 668 F.2d at 689; United States v. Watson, 599 F.2d 1149, 1156 n.5
(2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Tanu, 589 F.2d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Laurenti,
581 F.2d 37, 40 n.11 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Hillegas, 578 F.2d 453, 460 (2d Cir. 1978).
4. Discussion
Because the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the
defendant’s specious arguments that the Government’s purpose in any alleged pre-indictment
delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL
4043140, at *5. In any event, in denying the defendant’s pre-trial motions and supplemental pre-
trial motions, the Court noted the absence of “evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing
these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense.” (Dkt. No. 207 at
17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). That remains true.
defendant’s specious arguments that the Government’s purpose in any alleged pre-indictment
delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL
4043140, at *5. In any event, in denying the defendant’s pre-trial motions and supplemental pre-
trial motions, the Court noted the absence of “evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing
these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense.” (Dkt. No. 207 at
17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). That remains true.
45
DOJ-OGR-00009608
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document