All data sourced from public U.S. government records. Appearance of any name does NOT imply guilt or wrongdoing. Full disclaimer →
Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a motion to strike surplusage from the superseding indictment, arguing that allegations regarding Accuser-3 are irrelevant, prejudicial, and should be stricken or subject to the admissibility requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The memorandum contests the government's inclusion of Accuser-3's allegations, claiming they do not support the charges against Maxwell.
Source
DOJ
Release Date
—
Pages
15
Jurisdiction
—
Case
146
5 individuals identified
Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence from the indictment and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Christian R. Everdell (Defense Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence from the indictment and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Full-Text Search — Phase 2
In-document keyword search is coming when OCR/text ingestion is complete.
Jeffrey Epstein (Co-conspirator/alleged accomplice): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence from the indictment and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (Defense Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence from the indictment and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Bobbi C. Sternheim (Defense Attorney): This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence from the indictment and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).