Moon
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Guzman Loera
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial opinion concerning an appeal by a defendant named Maxwell. The court is reviewing the District Court's decision to deny Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The basis for Maxwell's motion was that 'Juror 50' failed to accurately answer questions on a jury questionnaire about a personal history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell argues deprived her of a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of a District Court's decision. The appellant, Maxwell, argues for a new trial on the grounds that Juror 50 was dishonest on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The text outlines the high legal standard of "abuse of discretion" required to overturn the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that new trials are granted only sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00022092.jpg
This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
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-00021542.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.
DOJ-OGR-00021536.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion or a party's brief, dated February 25, 2022. The text analyzes Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations to challenge a verdict. The document discusses the rule's specific exceptions, such as external influence or racial bias, in the context of the Defendant's attempt to use statements from 'Juror 50' about what another juror said. The central issue is whether these statements are barred by Rule 606 or fall under one of its exceptions.
DOJ-OGR-00021535.jpg
This legal document argues that a news article alleging juror misconduct is insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. It cites numerous legal precedents from various courts, including the Second Circuit, which have consistently held that unsworn, hearsay, anonymous, or speculative reports do not meet the high evidentiary standard required to investigate such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00021534.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to examine Juror 50 and other jurors. The defendant's motion was based on Juror 50's social media activity and post-trial statements, as well as a New York Times article alleging another juror had also been a victim of sexual abuse. The Court found the evidence insufficient, deemed the request a "fishing expedition," and took steps to protect juror privacy from media contact and legal inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello legal precedents is incorrect in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, the alleged misconduct by Juror No. 50 occurred outside the jury room, specifically through false answers during voir dire and subsequent self-publicity. The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that the juror's own actions in seeking the limelight are the reason the misconduct came to light.
DOJ-OGR-00009160.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal brief filed on February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against granting an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations, citing precedents from cases involving El Chapo (Guzman Loera), Bin Laden, and Martha Stewart. The argument asserts that unsworn newspaper reports or anonymous claims are insufficient evidence to warrant a juror inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009882.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello precedents is misplaced in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, which dealt with conduct during deliberations, this case involves a juror (Juror No. 50) who gave false answers during voir dire—conduct outside the jury room—and therefore an evidentiary hearing is warranted. The document further notes that the juror has actively sought public attention, which is how his false answers became known.
DOJ-OGR-00009839.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal filing (Document 643, filed March 11, 2022) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents legal arguments citing precedents (Guzman Loera, Bin Laden, Martha Stewart) to oppose an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations based solely on unsworn media reports. The filing argues that newspaper articles and hearsay do not constitute 'incontrovertible evidence' required to justify post-trial juror inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00009553.jpg
This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity