Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-1036House OversightLegal Filing

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment shoul...

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.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
d-1036
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

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.

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

Motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment for lack of specificityLack of specific details in the indictment regarding alleged victims and crimesGovernment's refusal to provide meaningful discovery
0Share
PostReddit

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.