DOJ-OGR-00003760.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 210 Filed 04/16/21 Page3of6 motion can be determined without a trial on the merits.” See United States v. Dervishaj, 787 F. App'x 12, 15 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2548 (2020) (multiplicity argument waived because the defendant failed to raise the issue by pretrial motion). The government also ignores ample Second Circuit authority that authorizes the relief requested by Ms. Maxwell: The defendant may move to have the prosecution elect among the multiplicitous counts, with all but the one elected dismissed. This is a matter for trial court discretion, and is most appropriate when the mere making of the charges would prejudice the defendant with the jury. United States v. Reed, 639 F 2d 896, 905 (2d Cir. 1981).! The reason for this discretion is clear: The law protects an individual against multiplicitous indictments to avoid multiple sentences for a single offense and to eliminate the prejudice which such indictments may generate in the eyes of a jury. For when an indictment charges numerous offenses arising from the same conduct it may falsely suggest to a jury that a defendant has committed not one but several crimes. Once such a message is conveyed to the jury, the risk increases that the jury will be diverted from a careful analysis of the conduct at issue. Compromise verdicts or assumptions that, with so many charges pending the defendant must be guilty on at least some of them, pose significant threats to the proper functioning of the jury system. United States v. Clarridge, 811 F. Supp. 697, 702 (D.D.C. 1992) (cleaned up).” Ms. Maxwell has been charged with the identical conduct in Counts 1-4. These multiple counts falsely suggest to the jury that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed more than one crime. The defect in the Indictment is patent and prejudicial, and the Court should remove the ' See also United States v. Ketchum, 320 F.2d 3, 7 (2d Cir.1963); United States v. Carter, 576 F.2d 1061, 1064 (3d Cir.1978); and United States v. Langford, 946 F.2d 798, 802 (11th Cir.1991). ? See also United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir.1999) (A multiplicitous indictment creates an exaggerated impression of a defendant's criminal activity by charging “an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.”). DOJ-OGR-00003760