← Back to home

Document 20-60080-CR-MORENO

AI Analysis

Summary: The document argues that the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell is weakening as her detention period extends, and that the government's assessment of her flight risk has increased in tandem with the diminishing strength of their case. It highlights the defendant's challenges to the indictment, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein and statute of limitations issues. The document also alleges that government prosecutors misled a federal judge to obtain evidence against Maxwell.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it highlights the weaknesses in the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell and raises concerns about prosecutorial misconduct.
Key Topics: Ghislaine Maxwell's flight risk assessment Challenges to the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell Alleged misconduct by government prosecutors
Key People:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell - defendant
  • Jeffrey Epstein - alleged co-conspirator
  • Government prosecutors - prosecutors in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
February 26, 2021
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES007

Full Text

Case: 20-60080-CR-MORENO Document: 39 Filed: 03/23/21 Page: 7 of 8 Conceded Problems Undermine the Strength of the Government's Case As Ms. Maxwell's period of detention passes the nine-month mark, the government has continuously upgraded Ms. Maxwell from a "plain [ ] risk of flight" to a "substantial and actual risk of flight" to a "serious flight of risk" and now to an "extreme risk of flight." (Dkt. 165 at 1.) Ironically, her level of flight risk increases as the strength of government's case against her diminishes. Ms. Maxwell has challenged the strength of the government's case in pretrial motions pending before the Court. Among other things, Ms. Maxwell has persuasively argued that the Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into by Jeffrey Epstein in 2007, which immunizes "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," bars Ms. Maxwell's prosecution in this case, and that the counts charging her with alleged sexual abuse are time-barred. The government's response to Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions shines further light of the weaknesses of its case. For example, the government concedes it cannot establish that either Ms. Maxwell or Epstein ever caused, or sought to cause, Accuser-34 to travel while she was a minor or that she was underage when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein. (See Opp.162-65 & fn. 57-58.)5 Hence, her allegations cannot support the conspiracies charged in the Indictment, leaving the government with only two witnesses to prove the charges against Ms. Maxwell. More importantly, in connection with the government's response, it produced documents indicating that government prosecutors misled a federal judge to obtain evidence against Ms. Maxwell (see, e.g., Opp. Ex. 4-7) - a shocking revelation that undermines the viability of the perjury counts, not to mention the integrity of the entire 4 Accuser-3 is identified in the Indictment as "Minor Victim-3." 5 "Opp." references are to page numbers of the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions, dated February 26, 2021 and not yet publicly filed. DOJ-OGR-00020180