Langford
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993-01-01 | Legal case | The United States v. Langford case, where the Second Circuit held a new trial is required for a b... | Second Circuit | View |
| 1993-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993). | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1993-01-01 | Court decision | The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993). | Second Circuit | View |
| 1993-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021747.jpg
This document is page 5 (labeled 'iv') of a legal filing, specifically a 'Table of Authorities' listing case precedents. It belongs to Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2023. The page lists various United States v. [Defendant] cases along with their citations and the page numbers within the main brief where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
This legal document discusses the standard for granting a new trial due to a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire. It cites the Second Circuit's application of the two-part test from the Supreme Court case *McDonough*, which requires showing both juror dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have provided grounds for a challenge for cause. The document refutes a defendant's argument by clarifying that the Second Circuit has rejected alternative interpretations and that the defendant's reliance on concurring opinions in *McDonough* is incorrect because a clear majority opinion exists.
DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg
This document is Page 34 of 66 from a legal filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments concerning juror misconduct and bias, citing precedents such as *United States v. Langford*, *United States v. Stewart*, and *Clark v. United States* to establish that a new trial may be warranted if a juror provides false answers during voir dire. The text emphasizes Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards for determining when a juror's dishonesty invalidates a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009887.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a court case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text argues against the government's position by analyzing several legal precedents, including McDonough, Shaoul, Langford, and Greer, concerning the standard for proving juror bias and granting a new trial. The author contends that a deliberate falsehood by a juror is not a prerequisite for a new trial, citing cases that establish a multi-part test where juror dishonesty is one of several factors to consider.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
This legal document page argues that a new trial is warranted when a biased juror is seated, regardless of whether the juror's false answers during voir dire were deliberate or inadvertent. It cites several Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases, including McDonough, Langford, and Leonard, to support this interpretation and refutes the government's contrary reading of these precedents. The argument centers on the idea that the key issue is juror bias, not the intent behind a juror's dishonesty.
DOJ-OGR-00008804.jpg
This document is a letter dated January 5, 2022, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Pagliuca argues against the government's request for a hearing concerning a juror who revealed post-trial that they were a victim of sexual assault. He contends the request is premature and that, based on publicly available information and legal precedent, the court should order a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity