Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-301House OversightLegal Filing

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the Superseding Indictment is too vague, failing to identif...

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the Superseding Indictment is too vague, failing to identify specific dates, accusers, or details of alleged crimes, and thus violates her constitutional rights. They request that Counts One through Four be dismissed or that the court direct the government to provide a Bill of Particulars.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
d-301
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the Superseding Indictment is too vague, failing to identify specific dates, accusers, or details of alleged crimes, and thus violates her constitutional rights. They request that Counts One through Four be dismissed or that the court direct the government to provide a Bill of Particulars.

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

Lack of specificity in the Superseding IndictmentFailure to provide essential facts constituting the offense chargedRequest to dismiss Counts One through Four or provide a Bill of Particulars
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.