2d Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text argues legal standards for the 'Severance of Offenses,' citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 and various precedents regarding when charges should be tried separately to avoid prejudice to the defendant. It lists numerous case citations including U.S. v. Mitan, U.S. v. Bradford, and U.S. v. Burke to support the argument that misjoined counts must be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00002287(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'Severance of Offenses' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing various precedents to argue that counts should be severed if joinder prejudices the defendant. It discusses the legal standards for 'misjoinder' and 'substantial prejudice' required to grant a motion to sever.
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments and case citations regarding the severance of charges and 'joinder,' specifically arguing that perjury counts should not be joined with substantive crimes if they are not sufficiently connected physically, temporally, or transactionally. The document cites precedents such as *United States v. Rivera*, *Randazzo*, and *Potamitis* to support the argument that unrelated offenses should be tried separately.
DOJ-OGR-00002285.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 120) from January 25, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Counts Five and Six of the indictment, which allege perjury stemming from two civil depositions given by Maxwell in 2016. The text primarily discusses 'Applicable Law' regarding the 'Joinder of Offenses' under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, citing various legal precedents to justify joining separate offenses in a single indictment for trial efficiency.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's decision to deny the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, citing the Bail Reform Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The ruling establishes a presumption in favor of detention because the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and notes that the Grand Jury indictment provides sufficient probable cause for this presumption.
DOJ-OGR-00002236(1).jpg
This is page 4 of a court filing (Document 106) from December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), citing precedents that a hearing should only be reopened if new information exists that was not known at the time of the original hearing. It introduces the discussion of the Defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00002205(1).jpg
This is page 2 of a court order filed on December 23, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Judge Alison J. Nathan orders the defendant to docket redacted documents related to a renewed motion for bail by the same day, citing case law that supports redactions to protect third-party privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number). The text presents the prosecution's argument against granting bail, citing the defendant's wealth, foreign ties, and skill at hiding as flight risks. It argues that a 'privately funded jail' and GPS monitoring are insufficient to ensure appearance in court, citing legal precedents (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) to support the claim that electronic monitoring merely reduces a head start rather than preventing flight.
DOJ-OGR-00002171.jpg
This page is from a legal filing dated December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the defendant is not explicitly named in the body text. The text outlines legal arguments regarding pre-trial detention, citing the Bail Reform Act and specific statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423) related to sex offenses involving minors, which create a presumption of detention. It discusses the legal standards for reopening a detention hearing and the burden of proof regarding flight risk, citing precedents from the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y.
DOJ-OGR-00002171(1).jpg
This page is from a legal filing dated December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the defendant is not explicitly named in the body text. The text outlines legal arguments regarding pre-trial detention, citing the Bail Reform Act and specific statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423) related to sex offenses involving minors, which create a presumption of detention. It discusses the legal standards for reopening a detention hearing and the burden of proof regarding flight risk, citing precedents from the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y.
DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's reasoning for detaining the defendant pending trial, citing flight risk, the insufficiency of home security/electronic monitoring, and rejecting arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. It also outlines the 'Applicable Law' under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.) regarding the standards for pretrial detention.
DOJ-OGR-00001976.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Document 97) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (United States v. Boustani, Bradshaw, Chen, etc.) cited elsewhere in the filing. The page is numbered 'iii' and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00001976.
DOJ-OGR-00001971.jpg
This document is a court order dated December 14, 2020, issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order directs the Defendant to docket redacted documents and exhibits, affirming that the redactions are appropriately tailored to protect individual privacy interests. The Court's decision is based on balancing competing considerations against the common law presumption of access, citing legal precedents like *United States v. Amodeo* and *Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*.
DOJ-OGR-00001833.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the charges in the indictment and discussing the production of discovery materials. The government argues for the delayed disclosure of certain sensitive materials related to Epstein victims not testifying at trial to protect ongoing investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 35) from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 24, 2020. The text outlines legal arguments and precedents regarding the Government's obligation (under Rule 16 and Brady) to review and produce records held by other agencies. It cites multiple cases to establish that the prosecution is not required to search other agencies' records (such as the SEC, PCAOB, or FAA) unless a 'joint investigation' was conducted with that specific agency.
DOJ-OGR-00022081.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 35) from case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It contains the Government's legal argument opposing discovery requests made by the defendant, Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein jail case). The Government argues that Thomas's requests are irrelevant to the charges and are instead an attempt to 'garner sympathy' and argue 'jury nullification,' citing various legal precedents to support the exclusion of such evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021900.jpg
This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.
DOJ-OGR-00021896.jpg
This document appears to be page 19 of an appellate filing (dated Dec 2, 2024) upholding the District Court's decisions in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It addresses the court's refusal to grant a new trial based on juror misconduct (specifically regarding Juror 50) and defends the court's response to a jury note concerning Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021891.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal ruling filed on December 2, 2024 (Case 22-1426), likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirms the District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of her indictment. The court rules that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and that the 2003 amendment to this statute was correctly applied retroactively.
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (dated December 2, 2024) related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein was geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida and does not bind the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) or prevent them from prosecuting Maxwell. It cites the legal precedent 'United States v. Annabi' to support the claim that plea agreements do not automatically bind other districts unless affirmatively stated.
DOJ-OGR-00021882.jpg
This document is page 5 of an appellate court decision (filed Dec 2, 2024) affirming Ghislaine Maxwell's 2022 conviction. The text outlines the background of the case, stating that Maxwell groomed underage girls for Epstein starting in 1994 and discusses Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors in Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021870.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable. It details that Maxwell transported a victim named 'Jane' to New York for sexual abuse and that abuse also occurred at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. The document confirms Maxwell's sentence of 240 months imprisonment, which was slightly above the calculated guideline range of 188-235 months.
DOJ-OGR-00021869.jpg
This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity