mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004725.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "295",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 18 of 26\nher interests or would have made a \"substantial difference\" in her case. (Id. at 17). In her current motion, the defendant offers no additional factual claims in support of her argument that the passage of time has prejudiced her defense. She instead refers the Court back to her prior hypothetical, vague, and conclusory claims of prejudice that do not withstand scrutiny. The defendant has not remotely carried her \"heavy burden\" of proof. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. Her renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.\nBecause the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the defendant's specious arguments that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). In any event, in denying the defendant's pre-trial motions filed in January, the Court noted the absence of \"evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense.\" (Apr. Op. at 17). That remains true.\nThe defendant argues that the \"S2 Indictment only compounds [the excessive pre-indictment delay] 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.\" (Def. Mot. at 22). The defendant's argument that the Government acted in bad faith—to the extent she is making such an argument—is based on no evidence whatsoever, and for good reason; it is not true.\nAs the Government has previously explained (see Dkt. No. 199), the Government obtained the S2 Indictment—which added counts relating to the defendant's abuse of an additional minor victim, Minor Victim-4—based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the 14\nDOJ-OGR-00004725",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 18 of 26",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "her interests or would have made a \"substantial difference\" in her case. (Id. at 17). In her current motion, the defendant offers no additional factual claims in support of her argument that the passage of time has prejudiced her defense. She instead refers the Court back to her prior hypothetical, vague, and conclusory claims of prejudice that do not withstand scrutiny. The defendant has not remotely carried her \"heavy burden\" of proof. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. Her renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the defendant's specious arguments that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). In any event, in denying the defendant's pre-trial motions filed in January, the Court noted the absence of \"evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense.\" (Apr. Op. at 17). That remains true.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant argues that the \"S2 Indictment only compounds [the excessive pre-indictment delay] 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.\" (Def. Mot. at 22). The defendant's argument that the Government acted in bad faith—to the extent she is making such an argument—is based on no evidence whatsoever, and for good reason; it is not true.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Government has previously explained (see Dkt. No. 199), the Government obtained the S2 Indictment—which added counts relating to the defendant's abuse of an additional minor victim, Minor Victim-4—based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004725",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Pierre-Louis",
      "Minor Victim-4",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "Aug. 9, 2018",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "295",
      "16 Cr. 541 (CM)",
      "2018 WL 4043140",
      "Dkt. No. 199",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004725"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 18 of 26."
}