2d Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
This page is from a legal opinion (likely the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, given the citations) affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the original indictment, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court reviews the denial *de novo* and rejects Maxwell's argument.
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court given the 'we review de novo' language) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations. The text analyzes 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors and cites case law such as Weingarten v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00021841.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that plea agreements made by any U.S. Attorney are binding on the entire U.S. government across all federal districts. It cites several court cases establishing this principle and the related rule that any ambiguities in such agreements must be interpreted against the government. The document concludes by stating that a case named Annabi contradicts this established legal precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00021830.jpg
This document is a legal filing (Case 22-1426) arguing for an en banc review of a panel decision. The core argument is that the precedent set by United States v. Annabi, which limits a plea agreement's scope to a single U.S. Attorney's office by default, conflicts with the broader, long-standing legal principle that plea agreements should be construed strictly against the government. The filing cites several other cases to demonstrate this tension with established circuit and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
DOJ-OGR-00021829.jpg
This document is page 'iv' of a legal filing, specifically Document 117 in Case 22-1426, dated November 1, 2024. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various court cases and statutes that are cited within the main body of the document. The citations include references to federal court decisions from various circuits and the Supreme Court, along with federal statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021813.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It discusses the District Court's refusal to grant a new trial and specifically addresses a jury note sent during deliberations regarding Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. Footnotes address a hearing regarding Juror 50's potential misconduct and citations to the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021810.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (via the PROTECT Act) regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses was intended by Congress to apply retroactively. The document specifically asserts that this amendment applies to Ghislaine Maxwell's conduct as charged in her indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021803.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court addresses Maxwell's argument that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejects this claim, holding that the NPA made by the Florida office does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY), which brought the charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021771.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023. It argues that 'Juror 50' should have been excluded from the Maxwell case due to implied bias, specifically citing the 'average person test' and the juror's failure to disclose victimization during voir dire. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Smith v. Phillips, U.S. v. Burr) to support the claim that nondisclosure of sexual abuse victimization deprives the court of vital information.
DOJ-OGR-00021768.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the defense was denied a fair opportunity to expose juror bias during a post-verdict hearing. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Colombo and U.S. v. Greer, to define the constitutional duty of the court to allow for the discovery of bias. The document outlines three types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—to support the proposition that sufficient fact-finding is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021762.jpg
This page from a legal brief discusses a juror (Juror 50) who allegedly provided false answers on a jury questionnaire regarding sensitive case issues. The text criticizes the immunity deal granted to the juror during a subsequent hearing, describing it as a "Potemkin village" that served the Government's interest in preserving the verdict rather than ensuring truthfulness.
DOJ-OGR-00021760.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on July 27, 2023, arguing for the enforcement of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The text contends that because the Government drafted the NPA with unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities should be resolved against the Government, and that Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the agreement before his death. It specifically mentions the 'co-conspirator clause' being understood as global and argues the Government cannot retroactively restrict the NPA.
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-00021731.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal appellate brief filed on June 29, 2023, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance in the trial, asserting that the jury did not convict Maxwell solely based on the transport of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico, but rather on intentions to violate New York law. It cites various legal precedents regarding 'variance' and 'constructive amendment' in indictments.
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-00021713.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) detailing the procedural history of a hearing concerning 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes how Judge Nathan ordered a hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to answer jury selection questions truthfully regarding past sexual abuse. The document notes that on March 8, 2022, Juror 50 testified under immunity and admitted that his answers to specific questions (25 and 48) were inaccurate.
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-00021590.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, is a transcript of a judge's ruling in Case 22-1426. The judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act does not constitute impermissible 'double counting' on top of the base offense. The judge cites legal precedent, including United States v. Watkins, to support the decision that the enhancement addresses a different facet of harm than the base offense level.
DOJ-OGR-00021589.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing) detailing Ghislaine Maxwell's managerial role in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise between 1994 and 2004. The judge cites testimony from pilots (Visoski, Alessi, Rodgers) and notes Maxwell's control over household staff and her own assistants, including Sarah Kellen, to justify legal sentencing enhancements for leading extensive criminal activity.
DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
This document appears to be page 129 of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, filed within the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal precedents (such as *United States v. Marquez* and *State v. Frazier*) to establish that plea agreements involving promises of leniency toward third parties are generally valid and do not constitute an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It also establishes that the five attorneys subject to this OPR investigation were evaluated under the local rules of the Southern District of Florida.
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-00019630.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against an immediate appeal by a party named Maxwell regarding the use of criminal discovery materials. It contends that Maxwell has not met the legal standard for such a review, citing precedents like Flanagan, Martoma, and Guerrero. The document asserts that Maxwell's concerns about privacy and publicity can be adequately addressed during a standard appeal after a final judgment is rendered in her criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in case 20-3061 (Maxwell appeal). The text argues that Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial discovery materials does not meet the strict requirements of the collateral order doctrine established by the Supreme Court. The Government distinguishes Maxwell's situation from cases she cited (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs.), noting those involved intervenors in civil cases rather than parties in criminal cases.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity