DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
315 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (appellate brief table of contents)
File Size:
315 KB
Summary
This document is a page from the Table of Contents (page ii) of a legal appeal filed on July 27, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding procedural errors by the District Court, specifically concerning the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding bias and the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The page specifically references Case 22-1426.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-verdict hearing regarding potential bias and questioned by the District Court.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the sentencing which is being appealed as an error by the District Court.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court whose decisions regarding Juror 50 and Ms. Maxwell's sentencing are being appealed.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by file stamp DOJ-OGR-00021745).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (referenced in document)
Relationships (2)
The document claims the court erred in sentencing Ms. Maxwell.
The court posed questions to Juror 50 at a post-verdict hearing.
Key Quotes (3)
"The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Imposing Unreasonable Limitations on the Range of Questions it Agreed to Pose to Juror 50"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror 50’s Actual, Implied, and Inferable Bias Was Established"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
Quote #2
"THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS. MAXWELL"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (862 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page3 of 35
C. The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Imposing
Unreasonable Limitations on the Range of Questions it
Agreed to Pose to Juror 50 at the Post-Verdict Hearing...................19
Unreasonable Limitations on the Range of Questions it
Agreed to Pose to Juror 50 at the Post-Verdict Hearing...................19
D. Juror 50’s Actual, Implied, and Inferable Bias Was
Established.......................................................................................22
Established.......................................................................................22
POINT III
(Point V in Appellant’s Principal Brief)
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS.
MAXWELL..........................................................................................26
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS.
MAXWELL..........................................................................................26
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................................................27
ii
DOJ-OGR-00021745
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document