Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Justice Marshall

Person
Mentions
9
Relationships
3
Events
1
Documents
4
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
3 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Justice Brennan
Professional
7
2
View
person Justice Blackmun
Professional
6
1
View
person Justice Brennan
Legal representative
5
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A Legal case discussion The document discusses the concurring opinions from the legal case McDonough regarding juror hone... N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00010172.jpg

This is page 15 (filed page 47) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues against the concept of backdating in tolling agreements and asserts there is no proof the defendant knew specific rules or discussed transactions. He argues that a 'government partisan' on the jury constitutes a serious error rather than a harmless one, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in Strickland.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009725.jpg

This document page is from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding juror misconduct and the standard for obtaining a new trial, citing the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*. The text quotes concurring opinions by Justices Blackmun and Brennan to argue that a juror's intentional dishonesty is not strictly required to order a post-trial hearing on bias.

Court filing / legal brief
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg

This document is page 15 (marked A-5917) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Shechtman argues that there was no proof the defendant knew specific transactions were wrong and claims a 'government partisan' juror was biased against the defendant, citing Justice Marshall's dissent in *Strickland* regarding harmless error. The Judge then invites prosecutor Ms. Davis to respond.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017184.jpg

This document appears to be page 97 of a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting a legal argument regarding the First Amendment and the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'. The narrator describes the panel of three judges (Aldrich, Julian, Pettine) and details his arguments comparing the case to the Supreme Court's 'Stanley' decision regarding private possession of materials. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production.

Manuscript / legal memoir excerpt
2025-11-19
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search