Browse by Document Type
Other (98,409 documents)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...00..c.cccccccescesesseeseeseeseseeeeseseeseesceaesaeeeceessceaccasceaeeceseseeceaesaeeaseaceseea
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page4of20
Other Authorities
Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page8of11
when the underrepresentation is due to the system of jury selection itself, rather than external
forces.” United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document211 Filed 04/16/21 Page10of11
33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-243-1100
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
DOJ-OGR-00003773
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 211 Filed 04/16/21 Page6of11
which effectuates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section, notes that the relevant
“community” is “the community in the district
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document211 Filed 04/16/21 Page3of11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Duren v. Missouri,
A39 U.S. 357 (1979) o.oo ccc ccc ccecceesee cece cn seesecenseeceeeeseseseeeseecsa
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 210 Filed 04/16/21 Page6of6
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
Court’s individual practices
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 210 Filed 04/16/21 Page5of6
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th Avenu
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 209 Filed 04/16/21 Page5of5
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
Court’s individual practices
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 209 Filed 04/16/21 Page2of5
The significant delay in prosecuting these charges has substantially prejudiced Ms.
Maxwell, and the government has offered no legitimate r
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 209 Filed 04/16/21 Page4of5
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th Avenu
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT N
DOJ-OGR-00003751
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page 14 of 15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 280 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2015 Page 13 of 14
CONCLUSION
Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 should b
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page13 of 15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 280 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2015 Page 12 of 14
January. In the meantime, however, counsel for t
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 280 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2015 Page 7 of 14
and other powerful individuals and that would likel
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 280 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2015 Page 5 of 14
of underage girls involved in sexual activities, in
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page4of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 280 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2015 Page 3 of 14
As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was
CasGASS-4:2959B09830- Pak umbocement 40Bsd on FiledhO4L eld 4/0? age 31 ;0fdeL10 of 10
agrees, and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the
proceedings.
III.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page1of15
EXHIBIT M
DOJ-OGR- 00003736
CascGAS8-4:2959500830-PAR umbocement 20854 on FilechO4L62 54/07 age 9 Of dde 8 of 10
Jane Doe 4’s claims would be “duplicative”); DE 298 at 1 n.1 (“As promised . . . Jane Doe No. 3
and Jane Doe No. 4
CascGAS8-4:2959500830-PAR umbocement 2084 on FilechOM¥LG2b4/0Page 7 Wade 6 of 10
Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA” (id. at 3); and “The Government was
well aware of Jane Doe #3
CascGAS8-4:2959500830-PAR umbocement 2084 on FilechO4¥L62 54/07 age § Of dde 5 of 10
Jeffrey Epstein, and (2) the Government violated their CVRA rights by concealing the non-
prosecution agreement wi
CascGAS8-4:2959500830-PAR umbocement 2084 on FilechO4L62 54/07 aGe > dd 4 of 10
In their Rule 21 Motion, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 do not claim that they were omitted
from this proceeding due to any
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page13 of 16
court held that the ambiguity of both questions rendered the answers insufficient as a matter of
law to support a perjury conviction.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-1 Filed 04/16/21 Page1of11
EXHIBIT L
DOJ-OGR-00003725
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 14 of 16
convicted of perjury for an answer given under oath that is literally true, even if it is
unresponsive and intended to mislead. The
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 15 of 16
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 10 of 16
As expected, both depositions were hostile. The questions posed to Ms. Maxwell were
poorly phrased without regard to the rules of evid
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 9of16
The defamation litigation was legally very complicated and New York law afforded
many statutory, common law, and constitutional defenses
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6of16
individuals, and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took
place.” Ex. L at 5. The court ruled the luri
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page5of16
The government misunderstands both the law and the facts related to the Giuffre v.
Maxwell defamation litigation. Although the government
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page3of16
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) .....ccccccccccceeccecececseecnsecesecenscecseeensesnseeessees
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 31 of 34
has committed to producing co-conspirator statements at least six weeks in advance of trial to
allow Maxwell to raise any objections.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 32 of 34
D. Rule 404(b) material
Maxwell’s final discovery request is for early disclosure of evidence the Government
seeks to offer under F
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 34
reason to doubt these representations given its expansive approach to document production thus
far in this case. The Government has agr
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 25 of 34
counsel testify on her behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist her in defending the
Mann Act charges.
The Second Circuit
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 24 of 34
one.” United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 929 (2d Cir. 1980). Though this standard is
demanding, the Court concludes that, due to un
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 22 of 34
At a minimum, Maxwell’s motion is premature. Courts typically evaluate whether a
question was fundamentally ambiguous only after the d
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 23 of 34
civil case, but that is not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if it proves that
Maxwell’s answers could have led to the d
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34
However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to
these charges.
At Lanfgraf’s second st
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 14 of 34
Section 3283, as amended by the PROTECT Act, broadly states that “[n]o statute of
limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecutio
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 15 of 34
Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act
because it found the prior statute of limi
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 13 of 34
Based on the statute’s text, context, and history, the Court follows Weingarten and
concludes that the appropriate inquiry is whether t
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 12 of 34
865 F.3d at 60. Maxwell nonetheless contends that using a case-specific approach for § 3283
would be impractical because the Governmen
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 11 of 34
To the extent that the categorical approach is ever appropriate in other contexts, it is
inappropriate here.
The Court begins with th
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 10 of 34
for example, it is possible to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity
and not follow through with the pla
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 19 of 22
based approach has been applied, let alone one that uses “offense involving” language.'’ Given
the Supreme Court’s consistent interpre
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 21 of 22
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that Counts One
through Four be dismissed.
Dated: Mar
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 20 of 22
age—to travel with the requisite intent. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). Section 2423(a) requires only the
transportation of a child with the req
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page17 of 22
outside the sentencing and immigration context in which the “necessarily entails” approach has
been rejected, it fails to offer any.” N