{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 26 of 32 incorporated into the broader Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three. (Id. ¶¶ 1-9, 11-13, 16-19). For the same reasons discussed in her prior motion, the Court should dismiss Count Five and either Count One or Count Three as multiplicitous. V. The Court Should Dismiss the S2 Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay. The Court should also dismiss the S2 indictment due to the government's excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing this prosecution against Ms. Maxwell in violation of her due process rights. In her previous motions, Ms. Maxwell argued that the Court should dismiss the S1 Indictment due to the excessive pre-indictment delay in charging her with those offenses. (Dkt. 138, 209). The S2 Indictment only compounds these issues by charging additional offenses based on alleged conduct that the government has known about since in or about 2007, which it added for tactical reasons to shore up its case against Ms. Maxwell. For the same reasons discussed in her prior motion, the Court should dismiss the S2 Indictment. The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's initial motion on these grounds, but preserved Ms. Maxwell's ability to renew her motion after trial. (Dkt. 207 at 18). Accordingly, we request that the Court defer consideration of this motion until trial. VI. The Court Should Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six. The Court should also order the government to file a Bill of Particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure because Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment do not sufficiently inform her of the nature of the charges against her. Rule 7(f) permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars \"in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.\" United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Counts Five and Six allege conduct that purportedly occurred over the course of a broad four- 22 DOJ-OGR-00004291",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 26 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "incorporated into the broader Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three. (Id. ¶¶ 1-9, 11-13, 16-19). For the same reasons discussed in her prior motion, the Court should dismiss Count Five and either Count One or Count Three as multiplicitous.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. The Court Should Dismiss the S2 Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should also dismiss the S2 indictment due to the government's excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing this prosecution against Ms. Maxwell in violation of her due process rights. In her previous motions, Ms. Maxwell argued that the Court should dismiss the S1 Indictment due to the excessive pre-indictment delay in charging her with those offenses. (Dkt. 138, 209). The S2 Indictment only compounds these issues by charging additional offenses based on alleged conduct that the government has known about since in or about 2007, which it added for tactical reasons to shore up its case against Ms. Maxwell. For the same reasons discussed in her prior motion, the Court should dismiss the S2 Indictment. The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's initial motion on these grounds, but preserved Ms. Maxwell's ability to renew her motion after trial. (Dkt. 207 at 18). Accordingly, we request that the Court defer consideration of this motion until trial.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VI. The Court Should Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should also order the government to file a Bill of Particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure because Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment do not sufficiently inform her of the nature of the charges against her. Rule 7(f) permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars \"in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.\" United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Counts Five and Six allege conduct that purportedly occurred over the course of a broad four-",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004291",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Bortnovsky"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293",
      "Dkt. 138",
      "Dkt. 209",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "820 F.2d 572"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}