mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004976.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "317",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 14\n\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six on the grounds that prosecuting her on those counts would violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court concludes that Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for these offenses and therefore her prosecution on these counts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six as untimely. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the Government brought the charges within the applicable statute of limitations.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous. The Court again determines, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that this motion is premature and denies it without prejudice for renewal at trial.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss the S2 indictment for pre-indictment delay. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has not established that she suffered prejudice and therefore any delay has not violated her rights to due process.\n- Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars related to counts five and six because they are too vague, and in particular do not provide specific dates. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the charges are sufficiently specific.\n- Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of “Minor-Victim 4” in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and therefore immediate disclosure is not warranted.\n\nI. Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2 indictment\n\nIn its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order on Maxwell’s first set of pretrial motions, the Court held that the non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar the charges against Maxwell in the S1 superseding indictment. See United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 1518675, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021). Maxwell now renews those arguments for the charges in the S2 superseding indictment. The Court understands the primary purpose of Maxwell’s renewed motion to be to preserve these arguments for appellate review, and the Court denies the\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004976",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six on the grounds that prosecuting her on those counts would violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court concludes that Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for these offenses and therefore her prosecution on these counts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six as untimely. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the Government brought the charges within the applicable statute of limitations.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous. The Court again determines, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that this motion is premature and denies it without prejudice for renewal at trial.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss the S2 indictment for pre-indictment delay. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has not established that she suffered prejudice and therefore any delay has not violated her rights to due process.\n- Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars related to counts five and six because they are too vague, and in particular do not provide specific dates. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the charges are sufficiently specific.\n- Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of “Minor-Victim 4” in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and therefore immediate disclosure is not warranted.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2 indictment",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order on Maxwell’s first set of pretrial motions, the Court held that the non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar the charges against Maxwell in the S1 superseding indictment. See United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 1518675, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021). Maxwell now renews those arguments for the charges in the S2 superseding indictment. The Court understands the primary purpose of Maxwell’s renewed motion to be to preserve these arguments for appellate review, and the Court denies the",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004976",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 16, 2021",
      "08/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 317",
      "20-cr-330 (AJN)",
      "2021 WL 1518675"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}