DOJ-OGR-00003692.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header:** * **Case Number:** 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * **Document Number:** 207 * **Filed Date:** 04/16/21 * **Page Number:** 18 of 34 **Text:** The text is divided into two main sections: the top section and the bottom section. **Top Section:** * The text begins with a statement about the potential witnesses who might have testified. * It mentions that the detective suggested that witnesses in the Palm Beach investigation did not identify Maxwell by name. * The text states that there are also serious doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf. * It cites United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999). * The text argues that the indictment should be dismissed because of the possibility of missing witnesses, failing memories, or lost records failing for similar reasons. * It states that these are difficulties that arise in any case where there is extended delay in bringing a prosecution, and they do not justify dismissing an indictment. * The text cites United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 325-26 (1971); see United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979). **Bottom Section:** * The text states that finally, the Court finds no substantial prejudice from the pretrial publicity this case has garnered. * It argues that Maxwell contends that lengthy public interest in this case has transformed her reputation from that of Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator. * The text states that and she also alleges - without evidence - that her accusers fabricated their stories based on media allegations. * It concludes that the Court will not dismiss the indictment on Maxwell's bare assertion that numerous witnesses are engaged in a perjurious conspiracy against her. * The text states that and the Court will take all appropriate steps to ensure that the pretrial publicity in this case does not compromise Maxwell's right to a fair and impartial jury. * It concludes that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay in bringing charges. * The text states that she may renew her motion if the factual record trial shows otherwise. * On the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges here. **Footer:** * **DOJ-OGR-00003692** Note: The text is written in a formal and legal tone, with citations to relevant case law and statutes. The language is complex and technical, indicating that the document is a legal brief or motion filed in a court case.