Lovasco
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00003016.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that there was no due process violation regarding the timing of an indictment. The Government contends that the delay was justified because two critical witnesses, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, only came forward to be interviewed in August and September 2019, less than a year before the indictment was sought in June 2020. The document cites legal precedents to support the position that delays caused by witness unavailability are permissible and that prosecutors can wait until an investigation is complete before seeking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges due to pre-indictment delay. The government contends that the defendant has not shown the delay was an intentional strategic tactic, citing legal precedents like Lovasco to support that investigative delays are permissible. The filing refutes the defendant's timeline, stating the relevant investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators began in late 2018, not decades prior.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity