Event Details

This document is page 17 of a Government filing (Document 295) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on May 25, 2021. The text argues that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the S2 Indictment based on improper pre-trial delay should be denied, citing that the Court has already rejected similar arguments and that the defendant failed to prove actual prejudice or intentional delay by the Government. It references case law standards for due process violations regarding pre-indictment delays.

This document is page 12 (internal page 8) of a legal filing (Document 295) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Double Jeopardy' and 'jeopardy attachment,' specifically analyzing when a defendant is considered to be at risk of conviction during pretrial dispositions and plea agreements. It heavily cites Second Circuit case law (Dionisio, Vanhoesen, Morris v. Reynolds) to argue that jeopardy does not attach to counts dismissed merely due to an agreement between parties without fact-based resolution.

This page is from a government legal filing (Document 295) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). Citing the *Annabi* precedent, the government asserts that plea agreements are generally only binding in the specific district where they are signed, not universally across all federal districts.