All data sourced from public U.S. government records. Appearance of any name does NOT imply guilt or wrongdoing. Full disclaimer →
Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the Superseding Indictment is too vague, failing to identify specific dates, accusers, or details of alleged crimes, and thus violates her constitutional rights. They request that Counts One through Four be dismissed or that the court direct the government to provide a Bill of Particulars.
Source
DOJ
Release Date
—
Pages
8
Jurisdiction
—
Case
124
4 individuals identified
Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the Superseding Indictment lacks specificity, violating Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and requests dismissal of certain counts or additional discovery.
Christian R. Everdell (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the Superseding Indictment lacks specificity, violating Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and requests dismissal of certain counts or additional discovery.
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 reveals the defense's argument that the Superseding Indictment lacks specificity, violating Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and requests dismissal of certain counts or additional discovery.
Bobbi C. Sternheim (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the Superseding Indictment lacks specificity, violating Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and requests dismissal of certain counts or additional discovery.