DOJ-OGR-00003707.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 33 of 34 Given the complexities of the case and the addition of two counts via the S2 indictment, the Court encourages the parties to agree to approximately eight weeks. IX. The S82 superseding indictment moots Maxwell’s grand jury challenge The Court has not received supplemental briefing on the motions in light of the return of the S2 superseding indictment and so does resolve any such issues here.! However, Maxwell’s motion seeking to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment because it was returned by a grand jury sitting at the White Plains courthouse appears moot. Maxwell argued that the use of a grand jury drawn from the White Plains Division in this District did not represent a fair cross-section of the community, because her trial would proceed in the Manhattan Division. A grand jury sitting in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment. By April 21, 2021, Maxwell shall show cause why her grand jury motion should not be dismissed on that basis. Conclusion The Court DENIES Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the indictment as barred by Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement (Dkt. No. 141), to dismiss the Mann Act counts as barred by the statute of limitations (Dkt. No. 143), to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay (Dkt. No. 137), to dismiss the Mann Act counts for lack of specificity (Dkt. No. 123), to dismiss the perjury counts as legally untenable (Dkt. No. 135), to strike surplusage (Dkt. No. 145), to dismiss count one or count three as multiplicitous (Dkt. No. 121), and to expedite pretrial disclosures (Dkt. No. 147). The Court GRANTS Maxwell’s motion to sever the perjury counts for a separate trial (Dkt. No. 119). ' The parties shall negotiate and propose a schedule for any available additional or supplement rulings in light of the filing of the S2 indictment. 33 DOJ-OGR-00003707