mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003759.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "210",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 210 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 6\n\nThe government does not dispute that Counts 1 and 3 charge Ms. Maxwell with the same crime, conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, nor that the charges are based on identical facts. Effectively conceding that the counts are multiplicitous, the government argues that the motion is \"premature,\" focusing only on the jeopardy problem that would occur if Ms. Maxwell were convicted on both counts at trial and ignoring the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell attendant to the overcharging. The government argues that the Court should defer ruling on this motion until \"after the completion of trial\" which will \"ensure\" a full factual record. Resp. at 172. The government is wrong.\n\nThe Court can, and should, grant this Motion, direct the government to elect which of the conspiracy charges it will prosecute, and dismiss the other. The identical facts are plainly alleged in the superseding indictment (\"Indictment\"), and the government has presented no factual distinction in its response. Accordingly, no additional record is necessary and very clear authority exists supporting the relief requested by Ms. Maxwell, dismissal of one of the multiplicitous counts. \"District courts presented with what are recognized before or during trial to be multiplicitous indictments will avoid any problem by requiring the prosecution to elect between counts charged rather than by merging the counts at sentencing.\" United States v. Polizzi, 257 F.R.D. 33, 36-37 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). The Court should order such an election and dismissal here.\n\nI. The Motion is Not Premature, and the Court has Discretion to Direct Election and Dismissal Pretrial\n\nThe government's \"prematurity\" argument is misplaced. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(ii), a defendant is required to raise arguments based on defects in the indictment, including \"charging the same offense in more than one count (multiplicity),\" by pretrial motion \"if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 210 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government does not dispute that Counts 1 and 3 charge Ms. Maxwell with the same crime, conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, nor that the charges are based on identical facts. Effectively conceding that the counts are multiplicitous, the government argues that the motion is \"premature,\" focusing only on the jeopardy problem that would occur if Ms. Maxwell were convicted on both counts at trial and ignoring the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell attendant to the overcharging. The government argues that the Court should defer ruling on this motion until \"after the completion of trial\" which will \"ensure\" a full factual record. Resp. at 172. The government is wrong.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court can, and should, grant this Motion, direct the government to elect which of the conspiracy charges it will prosecute, and dismiss the other. The identical facts are plainly alleged in the superseding indictment (\"Indictment\"), and the government has presented no factual distinction in its response. Accordingly, no additional record is necessary and very clear authority exists supporting the relief requested by Ms. Maxwell, dismissal of one of the multiplicitous counts. \"District courts presented with what are recognized before or during trial to be multiplicitous indictments will avoid any problem by requiring the prosecution to elect between counts charged rather than by merging the counts at sentencing.\" United States v. Polizzi, 257 F.R.D. 33, 36-37 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). The Court should order such an election and dismissal here.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Motion is Not Premature, and the Court has Discretion to Direct Election and Dismissal Pretrial",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's \"prematurity\" argument is misplaced. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(ii), a defendant is required to raise arguments based on defects in the indictment, including \"charging the same offense in more than one count (multiplicity),\" by pretrial motion \"if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003759",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "210",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003759"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing issues of multiplicity in the indictment. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
}