Browse by Document Type
Other (98,409 documents)
98a
community control, and he registered as a sexual
offender with the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit
in Florida courts for release of the copy of the
88a
advance of trial. The nature of the allegations in
this case—decades-old allegations spanning multiple
locations—present considerable challenges for the
preparation of the defense. However, the G
87a
agreed to produce all Jencks Act material at least six
weeks in advance of trial.
The Court also rejects Maxwell’s alternative request
for a hearing to determine the admissibility of co-
conspir
86a
the Government has issued is overly broad and lacks
a legal basis. Maxwell is not entitled to compel pro-
duction of these documents.
The Court also will not issue an order requiring the
immedia
84a
VIII. The parties shall negotiate all remaining
disclosures
Maxwell moves to compel the Government to
produce certain documents she believes it has in its
possession and has failed to produce. S
80a
instruction may be inadequate to mitigate these risks
given the nature of the allegations involved.
Importantly, a joint trial is also likely to require
disqualification of at least one of Maxwe
79a
disqualifying Maxwell’s chosen counsel based on their
involvement in the earlier civil case.
Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
allows a court to order separate trials if join
78a
2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 US. at
522-23).
The charged statements do not fall within this
narrow exception. Maxwell contends that the questions
did not relate to the sex tra
77a
At a minimum, Maxwell’s motion is premature.
Courts typically evaluate whether a question was
fundamentally ambiguous only after the development
of a full factual record at trial. See, e.g., Unit
70a
conduct charged in the $1 superseding indictment.
The Court could stop here. However, it also concludes
that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would
properly apply to these charges.
At Lanf
69a
in many cases.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54
(2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped
a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended
limit—even if DNA matching conclusively
68a
that it apply to prosecutions for offenses committed
before the date of enactment. Instead of simply
providing a new limitations period for future conduct,
Congress stated that no statute of limi
67a
Circuit has provided guidance in its decision in
Weingarten. Although the court did not provide a
definitive answer there, it explained that the view
Maxwell now takes conflicts with established
66a
an alternative basis for its holding, it explained that
the offense did not require fraud as an “essential
ingredient.” Jd. at 222. It reached that conclusion in
large part because the statute’s
65a
legislative history indicating that Congress intended
to apply § 3283 to a wide range of crimes against
children. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 60; Schneider,
801 F.3d at 196.
The purposes underly
64a
context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress
intended courts to apply the statute using a case-
specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same
conclusion in United States v. Schneider
63a
transported them for that purpose. Instead, Maxwell
contends that charged offenses do not qualify as
offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors because
sexual abuse is not an essential ingredi
62a
II. The indictment is timely
A. The indictment complies with the statute of
limitations
Federal law imposes a five-year limitations period
for most non-capital offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).
Rec
6la
involved defendants with first-hand knowledge of
negotiations who claimed prosecutors breached an
oral promise. “An oral agreement greatly increases the
potential for disputes such as ...a failur
57a
every instance to make clear that it applies only in the
district where signed.
Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite
conclusion. The provision of the NPA dealing with
co-conspirators doe
C
F
50a
[|] Payment in equal ___ (e.g., weekly, monthly,
quarterly) installments of $ over a period of
(e.g., months or years), to commence
(e.g., 30 or 60 days) after the date of this judgment;
o
5la
Oo Joint and Several
Case Number
Defendant and Co-Defendant Names
(including defendant number)
Total Amount
Joint and Several Amount
Corresponding Payee, if appropriate
L] The defendant shall pa
Ava
services rendered based on your ability to pay and the
availability of third-party payments. The Court author-
izes the release of available psychological and psychi-
atric evaluations and report
48a
CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES
The defendant must pay the total criminal monetary
penalties under the schedule of payments on Sheet 6.
TOTALS:
Assessment Restitution Fine
$300.00 $ $750,000.00
AVA
49a
the date of the judgment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3612(f). All of the payment options on Sheet 6 may
be subject to penalties for delinquency and default,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(g).
11 The
46a
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
You shall submit your person, and any property,
residence, vehicle, papers, computer, other electronic
communication, data storage devices, cloud storage or
medi
8.
45a
possible due to unanticipated circumstances, you
must notify the probation officer within 72 hours of
becoming aware of a change or expected change.
You must not communicate or interact with
44a
probation officer about how and when you must
report to the probation officer, and you must report
to the probation officer as instructed.
. You must not knowingly leave the federal judicial
dis
43a
authorizing a sentence of restitution. (check if
applicable)
5. M You must cooperate in the collection of DNA as
directed by the probation officer. (check if applicable)
6. @ You must comply wi
42a
RETURN
I have executed this judgment as follows:
Defendant delivered on to at
, with a certified copy of this judgment.
United States Marshal
By
Deputy United States Marshal
SUPERVISED RELEAS
Ala
IMPRISONMENT
The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a
total term of:
The Defendant is sentenced to a term of 240 Months.
Count 3
38a
By: /s/ [Illegible]
for A. MARIE VILLAFANA
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Dated:
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated:
GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Dated: 10-29-07
/s/ Lilly Ann Sanchez
LILLY A
30a
serving his sentence not later than January 4,
2008.
12. Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any
benefits with respect to gain time, other than
the rights, opportunities, and benefits as
25a
with minor females, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
2423(e);
(3) using a facility or means of interstate
22a
procedural error is found when a district court “fails to
calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing
Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as
mandatory, fails to consider th
16a
reached a verdict in order to probe for potential
instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.””*
While courts can “vacate any judgment and grant a
new trial if the interest of justice
14a
testified at trial, gave evidence that she had been
sexually abused when transported across state lines
as a minor. Counts Three and Four thus qualify as
offenses, and § 3283 applies to those off
lla
The history of the Office of the United States
Attorney is instructive as to the scope of their actions
and duties. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the
Office of the United States Attorney, alo
10a
The only language in the NPA that speaks to the
agreement’s scope is limiting language.
The negotiation history of the NPA, just as the text,
fails to show that the agreement was intended to bin
7a
sexual abuse, or sexual assault. Upon learning of the
interviews, the Government filed a letter on January
5, 2022, requesting a hearing; Maxwell then moved for
a new trial under Federal Rule of C
6a
the commencement of trial, prospective jurors completed
a lengthy questionnaire, with several questions rais-
ing issues relevant to the trial. Based on the completed
questionnaires, the parties s
17
determination that the NPA precludes Maxwell’s
prosecution in New York. As the Second Circuit itself
noted, although the co-conspirator clause at issue
here is “silent” as to whether it intended t
vil
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
United States v. Maxwell,
118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024)....1, 6, 8, 12, 16-18
United States v. Maxwell,
534 F. Supp. 3d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)........ 1
Unite
vill
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
OTHER AUTHORITIES Page(s)
Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of
Legal Texts (2012) .....eeeecccccccceeeeeeeeeeeee 15,17
U.S. Dept.
al
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page(s)
Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972)... cccccceeeeeeeeeees 8, 13, 14
Commonwealth v. Cosby,
666 Pa. 416, 252 A.3d 1092 (Pa. 2021)..... 14
In re Altro,
1
i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Ghislaine Maxwell was the Defendant in
the district court and the Appellant in the Second
Circuit. Respondent is the United States.
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
This c
aE E-Mail Address: 1115 H Street, N.E.
* [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20002
WON PING web Site vel (002) 789.0096
Prem www.wilsonepes.com Fax (202) 842-4896
No. 24-____
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AK
No. 24-___
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Anited States
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
Petitioner,
Vv.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Uni
No. 24-
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Anited States
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
Petitioner,
Vv.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Unite
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this
matter should be extended forty five days to and including April 10, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
M