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 Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment should be dismissed due to lack of specificity, as the indictment fails to provide necessary details about the alleged crimes and victims. The government has not provided meaningful discovery, making it difficult for Maxwell to prepare her defense. The defense cites case law to support their claim that the indictment's lack of specificity is prejudicial.
Source
DOJ
Release Date
—
Pages
8
Jurisdiction
—
Case
213
4 individuals identified
Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant): This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument that the indictment lacks specificity and that the government is not providing sufficient discovery, which could impact the fairness of the trial.
Christian R. Everdell (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument that the indictment lacks specificity and that the government is not providing sufficient discovery, which could impact the fairness of the trial.
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 potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument that the indictment lacks specificity and that the government is not providing sufficient discovery, which could impact the fairness of the trial.
Bobbi C. Sternheim (Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell): This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument that the indictment lacks specificity and that the government is not providing sufficient discovery, which could impact the fairness of the trial.