Event Details

This document is a page from a legal filing by the government in a criminal case, dated February 25, 2022. The government argues against a defendant's motion, asserting that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay are speculative and unsupported by evidence. The government specifically refutes the defendant's argument that lost flight manifests would have been helpful to the defense, citing legal precedents to argue that the defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving actual prejudice.

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 621) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 25, 2022. The filing outlines legal arguments against a defendant's motions to vacate their conviction, dismiss the indictment due to alleged pre-trial delays, and for a judgment of acquittal. The document structures the arguments, including discussions on applicable law and specific counts of the indictment.

This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 621) dated February 25, 2022. The author argues against a defendant's claim of multiplicity, urging the Court to apply the 'Korfant factors' for analyzing counts within the same indictment. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's claim should be rejected because the counts are legally distinct.

This document is page 26 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding 'Applicable Law' specifically concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause and the concept of 'multiplicity' in criminal charges. It cites various precedents to argue that charges covering different schemes under different statutes are not identical and that the Court should reject the defendant's motion.

This document is page 48 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that the Court should deny Maxwell's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, specifically addressing Count One (conspiracy). The text references testimony from a victim named 'Jane' who stated she was abused by both Epstein and Maxwell in New York and was groomed through methods including 'field trips.'

This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text contains legal analysis rejecting the defendant's argument that the Court's response to a jury note constructively amended the indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Jones, Lebedev, Muraca) to support the Court's discretion in handling jury inquiries and instructions.

This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 621) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on Feb 25, 2022. It argues that no legal 'variance' occurred during the trial regarding the charges in the S2 Indictment. The text discusses the grooming of a victim named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997 and addresses the defendant's argument regarding prejudice concerning testimony about abuse at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico.

This page is from a legal filing (Document 621) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text presents legal arguments citing Second Circuit precedents (specifically the 'Korfant factors') to argue that separate conspiracy counts are distinct and do not violate double jeopardy protections. The prosecution argues that Counts Three and Five charge different offenses and requests the Court reject the defendant's multiplicity claim.

Page 5 of 51 from a court filing (Document 621) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on Feb 25, 2022. The text argues that no 'constructive amendment' of the indictment occurred regarding the charges of enticing and transporting victim 'Jane' and other minor victims to New York. The remainder of the page outlines applicable law regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, citing precedents like U.S. v. Khalupsky and U.S. v. Dove to define the legal standard for constructive amendments.

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.