mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021021.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "38",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page195 of 221\nA-395\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 38 of 45\nthat the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged [her] ability [to] defend against the charges. Id. (citing Corniella, 171 F.3d at 751).\nIn its prior rulings, this Court concluded that the Defendant satisfied neither requirement: there was \"no evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense,\" and she \"failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay.\" Id. at 316–17. But, the Court explained, the Defendant could renew her motion if the factual record at trial showed prejudice that the pretrial record did not. The Defendant now renews her motion, identifying a bevy of documentary records and witnesses that, she says, were unavailable because of the Government's delay. The Court, for the reasons stated below, disagrees and denies the motion.\nAs an initial matter, even if the Court accepts all of the Defendant's contentions in her briefing, her pre-indictment delay claim must fail because the Defendant has made no claim that the Government intentionally delayed the Indictment to gain a tactical advantage over the Defendant. United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003). The Court has twice concluded that \"nothing in the record indicates that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense.\" Maxwell, 2021 WL 3591801, at *5. It is the Defendant's burden to prove the Government's improper motive, but in her briefing she does not attempt to present evidence of intentional delay for tactical advantage. The Court therefore does not alter its prior conclusion. If anything, as the Government notes, testimony at trial supplied legitimate explanations for the Government's failure to indict the Defendant at an earlier time. For example, several witnesses testified that their cooperation with\n38\nDOJ-OGR-00021021",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page195 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-395",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 38 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged [her] ability [to] defend against the charges. Id. (citing Corniella, 171 F.3d at 751).\nIn its prior rulings, this Court concluded that the Defendant satisfied neither requirement: there was \"no evidence that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense,\" and she \"failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay.\" Id. at 316–17. But, the Court explained, the Defendant could renew her motion if the factual record at trial showed prejudice that the pretrial record did not. The Defendant now renews her motion, identifying a bevy of documentary records and witnesses that, she says, were unavailable because of the Government's delay. The Court, for the reasons stated below, disagrees and denies the motion.\nAs an initial matter, even if the Court accepts all of the Defendant's contentions in her briefing, her pre-indictment delay claim must fail because the Defendant has made no claim that the Government intentionally delayed the Indictment to gain a tactical advantage over the Defendant. United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003). The Court has twice concluded that \"nothing in the record indicates that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense.\" Maxwell, 2021 WL 3591801, at *5. It is the Defendant's burden to prove the Government's improper motive, but in her briefing she does not attempt to present evidence of intentional delay for tactical advantage. The Court therefore does not alter its prior conclusion. If anything, as the Government notes, testimony at trial supplied legitimate explanations for the Government's failure to indict the Defendant at an earlier time. For example, several witnesses testified that their cooperation with",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "38",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021021",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22",
      "2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "A-395",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021021"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}