Ninth Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990-01-01 | N/A | On rehearing en banc (893 F.2d 205), the Ninth Circuit court withdrew part of its previous opinio... | Ninth Circuit | View |
| 1988-01-01 | N/A | The Ninth Circuit court ruled in Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman (842 F.2d 1102), rejecting the Pres... | Ninth Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000053.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal document discussing the enforceability of plea agreements made by the U.S. Attorney's Office, particularly concerning whether such agreements bind the entire government or only the specific office involved. It contrasts the Ninth Circuit's view, which generally holds agreements binding on the whole government, with the Second and Seventh Circuits' opposite presumption, which limits enforceability to the specific U.S. Attorney's office unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text references case law such as United States v. Johnston and Annabi.
DOJ-OGR-00000051.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal report discussing a circuit split regarding federal criminal law, specifically the binding nature of plea agreement promises made by United States Attorneys. It details how the Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits apply 'Santobello's instruction' that such promises bind the government, citing the Third Circuit's ruling in United States v. Gebbie (2002) and the Fourth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Carter (1972) to explain that U.S. Attorneys' commitments bind the entire federal government.
DOJ-OGR-00014793.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript or ruling where a judge dismisses a defense argument. The judge affirms that an 'undue influence' enhancement applies to the defendant's sex trafficking conviction involving a victim named Carolyn. The judge cites Carolyn's financial vulnerability (drug addiction, newborn son) and the significant age gap with Epstein as clear evidence of undue influence, making the defense's argument 'meritless'.
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 24, 2020, involving the prosecution of prison guards (specifically defendant Thomas) related to the events of August 9-10, 2019 (Jeffrey Epstein's suicide). The Government argues against Thomas's request for BOP records regarding staffing shortages and prior instances of falsified records, asserting that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team and therefore the Government is not obligated to search BOP files under discovery rules. The text cites legal precedents (U.S. v. Bryan, U.S. v. Volpe) to support the limitation of 'government' to only those agencies participating in the specific investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021654.jpg
This document appears to be page 'vi' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing, specifically Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), filed on June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents involving the United States government against various defendants (Annabi, Archer, Ashraf, etc.) primarily in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document serves as an index for case law citations found later in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00021123.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, referencing several court cases and judicial opinions. It highlights a shift in interpretation, particularly noting Judge Cabranes's view in Enterprise that such statutes may have impermissible retroactive effects. The document also points out a tension between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits' reasoning and the Third Circuit's stance on the retroactivity of §3283.
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009146.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against a finding of implied bias for 'Juror 50'. It outlines the Second Circuit's established 'narrow' view on the matter, citing multiple precedents where the court refused to presume bias based on occupational relationships or personal experiences without a showing of actual prejudice. The document asserts that the current circumstances involving Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification set by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00010701.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from June 25, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to hear from individuals during sentencing, even if they do not strictly meet the definition of a 'victim' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It cites various legal precedents to support the admission of statements from 'affected individuals,' specifically mentioning 'Sarah' at the very end of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010698.jpg
This legal document argues that victims, specifically Sarah and Elizabeth, have a right under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to deliver in-court statements at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. It cites legal precedents and legislative intent to support the importance of these "victim impact statements," asserting they are crucial for ensuring victims are heard and for determining an appropriate punishment based on the harm caused.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009825.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against excusing 'Juror 50' for implied bias. It heavily cites Second Circuit precedent, which maintains a 'narrow' view on the matter, requiring more than just similar personal experiences or occupational relationships to presume bias. The document asserts that the circumstances of Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification established by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00003013.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the Defendant failed to prove the Indictment was delayed for an improper purpose. The text discusses the legal standards for pre-indictment delay, citing Supreme Court and Circuit precedents, and rejects the Defendant's request for a 'balancing test' regarding prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00002990.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the prosecution is unfair due to the passage of time, citing the Retroactivity of Section 3283 and the 2003 Congressional amendment which extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. It references legal precedents from the Eighth and Ninth Circuits to support the validity of prosecuting sex crimes decades after they occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00002989.jpg
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to the federal statute of limitations for child sexual abuse (18 U.S.C. § 3283) was expressly intended by Congress to apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. The document supports this claim by analyzing the text of the statute and citing legal precedent from the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, which have held that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges for live claims.
DOJ-OGR-00005218.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding jury selection (voir dire), specifically arguing that defense attorneys should be allowed to question jurors directly due to the case's complexity and the high risk of prejudice from extensive pretrial publicity. The text cites legal precedents (United States v. Ible, United States v. Davis, Silverthorne v. United States) to support the necessity of thorough examination to ensure impartial jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00005185.jpg
This document is a handwritten page from a legal filing in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed in October 2021. The text contains legal arguments regarding statutory interpretation, specifically concerning definitions of 'sexual abuse' and 'exploitation,' and argues for the application of 'repose' (statute of limitations) based on Supreme Court precedents like *Lockhart*, *Toussie*, and *McElvain*. It criticizes the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of these statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from July 22, 2022, discussing a defendant's conviction for sex trafficking a victim named Carolyn. The court refutes the defense's argument against an "undue influence" sentencing enhancement, finding that the defendant exploited Carolyn's financial needs for her drug addiction and newborn son. The court concludes that taking advantage of a victim's financial vulnerability constitutes undue influence, referencing testimony from Carolyn and other victims (Jane, Annie) who received payments.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017689.jpg
This document is page 54 of 78 from a submission to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of Epstein's attorney, David Schoen. The content is a reproduction of a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on victim impact statements, sentencing guidelines, and the split between different Circuit courts regarding notice requirements for upward departures in sentencing. This legal context is highly relevant to the Epstein case, as the violation of CVRA rights (failure to notify victims of the plea deal) was a central point of contention in the scrutiny of his Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017686.jpg
This document discusses the legal interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) regarding a victim's right to access presentence reports. It analyzes the Ninth Circuit's decision in *In re Kenna*, distinguishing the author's proposal for "relevant" access from the rejected claim for a "general right" to the entire report. The text argues for a balanced approach where prosecutors facilitate victim access to relevant portions of the report to assist in victim impact statements.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017676.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, seemingly submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (indicated by the Bates stamp). The text provides a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), asserting that criminal defendants do not have the right to compel the disclosure of a victim's identity, address, or private records (such as mental health records) prior to trial. It cites various legal precedents and specifically acknowledges the work of victims' rights litigator Wendy Murphy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012394.jpg
This document summarizes the legal case of Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman. The Ninth Circuit initially ruled that the President acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with the Competition in Contracting Act and awarded attorneys' fees to Lear Siegler. However, upon a rehearing en banc, the court reversed its decision, ruling that Lear Siegler was not a prevailing party and withdrew the prior opinion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity