Event Details

This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.

This legal document is a filing by the prosecution (the Government) in the criminal case against the defendant, Maxwell. The Government argues that Maxwell's various motions for disclosure, including a request for a bill of particulars, should be denied as they are meritless or premature. The prosecution asserts that it has already provided sufficient information through the indictment and discovery, and that the defendant is not entitled to the requested details under established law.

This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.

This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.

This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, arguing against the misuse of a 'bill of particulars'. It cites numerous court cases to establish the legal precedent that a bill of particulars is not a tool for the defense to compel the Government to disclose its evidence, witnesses, or trial strategy. The document asserts that such a bill is only warranted when an indictment is so vague that it prevents the defendant from preparing a defense.

This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues against using a 'categorical approach' to interpret the phrase 'offense involving' in Section 3283. It cites several legal precedents, most notably Weingarten v. United States, to counter an argument made by an individual named Maxwell. The document asserts that Congress intended a broad application of the statute and that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing or immigration contexts, is not appropriate here.

This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, that discusses the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. It cites numerous federal court cases, including from the Supreme Court, to argue that suppressing evidence is a 'last resort' intended to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. The text emphasizes the 'good-faith' exception, particularly when law enforcement acts in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, suggesting that suppression is generally not warranted in such cases.

This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standard for materiality in a perjury case. It cites several precedents (Gaudin, Kross, Birrell, Chan Lo) to define what constitutes a material false statement, particularly in the context of a deposition. The document concludes by arguing that the defendant's deposition statements were knowingly false and that the determination of their truthfulness is a matter for the jury at trial, not for a pretrial dismissal.

This legal document page outlines the applicable law concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing multiplicitous charges. It defines a multiplicitous indictment as one that charges a single crime in multiple counts and cites several legal precedents (e.g., North Carolina v. Pearce, United States v. Chacko) to explain that a defendant cannot be punished multiple times for the same offense. The document clarifies the legal standard for a multiplicity claim and the procedural remedies courts should use to protect a defendant's rights.

This legal document argues that a district court's supervisory authority to suppress evidence is limited and should only be used when there is a clear violation of constitutional, statutory, or procedural law. Citing multiple legal precedents, the author contends that this power must be 'sparingly exercised' and that the defendant in this case has not established such a violation, and is therefore not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the government's actions.

This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.

This legal document, page 125 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, discusses the application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the act of producing documents. It cites several legal precedents to argue that the privilege only applies when the act of production itself is testimonial and incriminating, not merely because the documents' contents are incriminating. The document further asserts that the Fifth Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individuals from governmental coercion, not from other moral or psychological pressures.

This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.

This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, discusses the legal standard for challenging an affidavit based on alleged omissions of fact. It cites numerous precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York, to argue that a motion to suppress evidence should be denied unless the omissions were intentional, deliberate, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The document emphasizes that this is a high standard to meet, as courts recognize that all affidavits will inevitably omit some facts that may seem significant in retrospect.

This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, presents an argument about the jurisdictional scope of plea agreements. The author refutes a defendant's motion by citing case law, primarily *Annabi*, to argue that a plea agreement only binds the specific U.S. Attorney's Office that made it, unless it explicitly states a broader scope. The document contrasts this with the defendant's argument that without an explicit limitation, an agreement should bind the entire federal government.

This document is page xxiv of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations with corresponding page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The majority of the cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and one corporation.

This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is part of a prosecution's argument against a defendant's request for a bill of particulars. The prosecution contends that the indictment is sufficiently detailed and that the defendant has already received over 2.7 million pages of discovery, making further specifics unnecessary. A footnote reveals that the Government was unable to obtain records of commercial flights taken by the defendant, Epstein, or any victims because the investigation was opened after the records were no longer available.

This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and statutes of limitations. The author argues that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to retroactively extend a limitations period for prosecutions that are not yet time-barred, citing numerous legal precedents like Falter v. United States and Stogner v. California. The document concludes that applying Section 3283 retroactively in this case is lawful and dismisses the defendant's contrary assertion.

This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.