mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009597.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "35",
    "document_number": "621",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 35 of 51\n\nwitnesses and records are hardly the sort of evidence that she can use to carry her heavy burden.\nWithout proof of actual prejudice, the motion fails. Second, even if the Court finds actual prejudice to the defense, the defendant has not established that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. As the Court previously found, \"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.\" (Dkt. No. 317 at 10; see also Dkt. No. 207 at 17). The defendant did not previously make any showing of an intentional and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose. She fails to address the Court's prior findings and has made no additional showing.\nBecause the defendant cannot establish either element, let alone both, her due process claim is meritless and should be denied.\n\nA. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice\n\n1. Applicable Law\nIt is well-settled that the statute of limitations is \"the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.\" United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971). Thus, when a case has been brought within the statute of limitations, it is \"only rarely dismissed,\" and carries a \"strong presumption of validity.\" United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982).8\n\n8 As this Court previously found, the \"applicable statute of limitations\" does not \"bar[] the charges here.\" (Dkt. No. 207 at 18).\n\n34\nDOJ-OGR-00009597",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 35 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "witnesses and records are hardly the sort of evidence that she can use to carry her heavy burden.\nWithout proof of actual prejudice, the motion fails. Second, even if the Court finds actual prejudice to the defense, the defendant has not established that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. As the Court previously found, \"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.\" (Dkt. No. 317 at 10; see also Dkt. No. 207 at 17). The defendant did not previously make any showing of an intentional and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose. She fails to address the Court's prior findings and has made no additional showing.\nBecause the defendant cannot establish either element, let alone both, her due process claim is meritless and should be denied.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice\n\n1. Applicable Law",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is well-settled that the statute of limitations is \"the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges.\" United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971). Thus, when a case has been brought within the statute of limitations, it is \"only rarely dismissed,\" and carries a \"strong presumption of validity.\" United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982).8",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 As this Court previously found, the \"applicable statute of limitations\" does not \"bar[] the charges here.\" (Dkt. No. 207 at 18).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "34",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009597",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22",
      "1971",
      "1999",
      "1982"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "621",
      "317",
      "207",
      "404 U.S. 307",
      "171 F.3d 748",
      "683 F.2d 688",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009597"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and mostly clear, but there are some minor formatting issues with the footnote. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}