{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34\n\n171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971)). There is a strong presumption that an indictment filed within the statute of limitations is valid. To prevail on a claim that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a defendant must show both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant's ability defend against the charges. See id. This is a stringent standard. “Thus, while the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar.” DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790–91 (2d Cir. 1999).\n\nThe Court sees no evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. However, it is enough to say that Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.\n\nMaxwell first points to several potential witnesses who have passed away. These include Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged victims in this case, and a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida. She contends they all would have provided exculpatory testimony were they alive today. Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399–400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell\n\n17\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003691",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971)). There is a strong presumption that an indictment filed within the statute of limitations is valid. To prevail on a claim that pre-indictment delay violates due process, a defendant must show both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant's ability defend against the charges. See id. This is a stringent standard. “Thus, while the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely ajar.” DeMichele v. Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790–91 (2d Cir. 1999).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court sees no evidence that the Government’s delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell’s ability to prepare a defense. However, it is enough to say that Maxwell does not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell contends that the Government’s delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell first points to several potential witnesses who have passed away. These include Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, one individual Maxwell believes worked with one of the alleged victims in this case, and a police detective who investigated Epstein in Florida. She contends they all would have provided exculpatory testimony were they alive today. Courts have generally found that vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399–400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003691",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Greenburgh Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 7"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1971",
      "1999",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 207",
      "171 F.3d 748",
      "404 U.S. 307",
      "167 F.3d 784",
      "388 F. Supp. 2d 396",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003691"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the issue of pre-indictment delay and its impact on the defendant's ability to defend against charges. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal references."
}