DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 124 Filed 01/25/21 Page 4 of 8 INTRODUCTION The Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) in this case is remarkable because it fails to identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in the Indictment are the years 1994-1997, often combined with phrases such as “from at least in or about” and “beginning in at least.” This mishmash of a pleading was carefully crafted to not provide Ms. Maxwell with the necessary information to adequately investigate these false allegations and prepare for trial. Ms. Maxwell is innocent and should not have to guess about what evidence the Government claims warrants her continual incarceration but stubbornly refuses to identify or disclose. The Court should dismiss Counts One through Four of the Indictment or direct the Government to provide Ms. Maxwell with proper discovery and a Bill of Particulars. ARGUMENT Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) requires, among other things, that an indictment contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged ....” There are two constitutional requirements for an indictment to be sufficient: (1) it must contain “the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform[ ] a defendant of the charge against which he must defend,” and (2) it must enable the defendant “to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). An indictment that fails to allege the essential elements of the crime charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 760-61 (1962). DOJ-OGR-00002314