All data sourced from public U.S. government records. Appearance of any name does NOT imply guilt or wrongdoing. Full disclaimer →
The memorandum argues that counts one through four of the superseding indictment should be dismissed as time-barred, asserting that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 does not apply retroactively and that the statute does not cover the offenses charged in those counts.
Source
DOJ
Release Date
—
Pages
25
Jurisdiction
—
Case
144
4 individuals identified
Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant): This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument for dismissing counts one through four of the superseding indictment based on statute of limitations grounds, potentially impacting the outcome of the criminal case against her.
Christian R. Everdell (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument for dismissing counts one through four of the superseding indictment based on statute of limitations grounds, potentially impacting the outcome of the criminal case against her.
Full-Text Search — Phase 2
In-document keyword search is coming when OCR/text ingestion is complete.
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument for dismissing counts one through four of the superseding indictment based on statute of limitations grounds, potentially impacting the outcome of the criminal case against her.
Bobbi C. Sternheim (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument for dismissing counts one through four of the superseding indictment based on statute of limitations grounds, potentially impacting the outcome of the criminal case against her.