2d Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002678.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a court filing dated February 4, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists legal precedents (cases), statutes, and rules relied upon in the main document. Key statutes cited include 18 U.S.C. § 2421, 2422, and 2423, which relate to the transportation of individuals for illegal sexual activity (Mann Act) and sexual exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00005861.jpg
This legal document is a portion of the Government's response to a defense motion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's request to prohibit the use of the word 'victim' when referring to the 'Minor Victims' during the trial. The prosecution contends that using the term is part of its legitimate litigating position and not improper vouching for witness credibility, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support its stance.
DOJ-OGR-00005850.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 397) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the admissibility of witness identification testimony, citing precedents such as *Neil v. Biggers* and *United States v. Simmons* to argue that even suggestive identification procedures do not require suppression if the identification is independently reliable based on the totality of circumstances. The page bears a Department of Justice footer stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005850).
DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a portion of a government motion arguing against the defense's proposed jury instruction. The Government contends that the defense's instruction regarding sexual activity with 'Minor Victim-3' is wrong on the law and that the relevance of United Kingdom's age of consent law should be disregarded. The document also states that the Government has already provided the defense with discovery materials, including the identities of alleged co-conspirators, making the defense's request to preclude their statements baseless.
DOJ-OGR-00005835.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of 'Minor Victim-3's' testimony under Rule 404(b) to establish the defendant's intent and modus operandi regarding grooming and recruitment. It cites three legal precedents (Vickers, McDarrah, and Brand) to support the admission of evidence regarding grooming, email communications, and interest in minors.
DOJ-OGR-00005749.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists legal precedents, including numerous 'United States v.' cases from various circuit courts, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The table indicates the page numbers within the parent document where each authority is cited.
DOJ-OGR-00005732.jpg
This document is Page 7 of a defense filing (Document 391) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that evidence collected by the Palm Beach Police Department—specifically message pads, electronic storage devices (CPUs, CDs, Flash Cards), and photos—should be inadmissible due to lack of authenticity, poor chain of custody ('unreliable mess'), and lack of proper inventory. The text cites legal precedents regarding the requirements for authenticating physical evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002826.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (filed March 24, 2021) outlining 'Applicable Law' under the Sixth Amendment regarding jury selection. It details the requirements for establishing a 'fair cross-section' of the community in a jury pool, citing precedents such as *Taylor v. Louisiana* and *Duren v. Missouri*. The footer indicates this document was processed by the Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR).
DOJ-OGR-00002710.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on February 4, 2021. The motion requests the court to order the government to disclose favorable evidence and, more significantly, to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements from alleged co-conspirators, particularly the deceased Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that admitting such testimonial statements without the possibility of cross-examination would be highly prejudicial and cites legal precedents like the 'Geaney rule' to support the need for a prior hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00005210.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 13, 2021. The defense argues for 'individual voir dire' during jury selection, citing the 'tsunami' of negative pretrial publicity surrounding Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein since Epstein's arrest in July 2019 and death in August 2019. The text references Supreme Court precedent regarding the necessity of questioning jurors individually to avoid bias in high-profile cases.
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.
DOJ-OGR-00005832.jpg
This document is page 49 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the admissibility of 'Minor Victim-3's' testimony, stating it is necessary to counter expected defenses that the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) played no role in procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein. Footnote 11 provides extensive legal analysis distinguishing this case from precedents (Cummings, Townsend, Mahaffy, Nektalov) regarding 'other crimes' evidence and Rule 404(b), arguing that the abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct proof of the conspiracy rather than a distinct, unrelated crime.
DOJ-OGR-00011566.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial ruling dated July 22, 2022, concerning a sentencing guideline calculation. The judge finds that two individuals, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. The judge overrules a prior decision by the Probation department to exclude them from the calculation and, citing Second Circuit precedent, decides to consider them as additional victims for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00011559.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on July 22, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (the defendant). The judge overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing enhancements, affirming that the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor and rejecting the argument that a finding of 'continuing danger to the public' is required by the Guidelines. The judge cites legal precedents (United States v. Sash, NLRB v. SW General) to prioritize the clear text of the Guidelines over background commentary or legislative history.
DOJ-OGR-00011533.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, dated July 22, 2022, in which a judge is ruling on objections made by the defendant. The judge overrules objections to including testimony from a victim named Carolyn about a sexual assault by Epstein and information about perjury charges in a presentence report. The judge affirms the court's broad discretion in considering such information for sentencing and states a belief in the reliability of both Carolyn's testimony and the information underlying the perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00005759.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal precedents cited in the main document, including various U.S. court cases, U.S. Constitutional Amendments V and VI, and Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. The page is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00005759.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity