Marion
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss an indictment based on pre-indictment delay. Maxwell argues the delay prejudiced her defense because potential witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, have died. The court rejects this argument, finding no evidence of improper government purpose for the delay and concluding that Maxwell's claims about what deceased witnesses might have testified are too speculative to meet the high standard required for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00020775.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes whether a statute can be retroactively applied to prosecute the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that applying the PROTECT Act does not have impermissible retroactive effects because it did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights, as the original statute of limitations had not expired when the Act was passed. The document also dismisses Maxwell's fairness argument as a policy disagreement with Congress and affirms that the government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process, citing the statute of limitations as the primary safeguard against stale charges.
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-00009597.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant's (Maxwell's) due process claim should be denied. The court asserts that she has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from a pre-indictment delay or that the Government's delay was for an improper purpose. The document cites legal precedents, including United States v. Marion, to emphasize that the statute of limitations is the main safeguard against stale charges and that cases brought within that period hold a strong presumption of validity.
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Government's opposition) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecution argues that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay—specifically citing dead witnesses, lost Epstein employees, and corrupted memories—are insufficient to warrant dismissal based on established legal precedents. The document cites various case laws (Marion, Snyder, Iannelli, King) to support the position that fading memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in delays and do not automatically constitute actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00003003.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on pre-indictment delay. The government asserts that the defendant has failed to meet the two-prong test required by the Second Circuit: demonstrating actual prejudice and proving the delay was for an improper government purpose. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's due process claim is meritless and should be denied.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity