Hernandez
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-07-29 | Court ruling | A ruling in the United States v. Hernandez case permitted the use of a pseudonym for an undercove... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2009-10-01 | Legal case | United States v. Hernandez, No. 09-CR-625 (HB), 2009 WL 3169226, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008390.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing dated December 15, 2021, details the Court's rejection of the Defense's request to allow a witness to testify under a pseudonym. The Court finds the request untimely, notes that other legal tools like a letter rogatory were available to compel testimony, and distinguishes the case from precedents involving undercover officers whose safety or operational effectiveness would be compromised by revealing their identity.
DOJ-OGR-00001687.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated July 29, 2020, presents the defense's argument against a government-proposed protective order in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends the order would impede their ability to investigate alleged victims and witnesses, citing legal precedents where individuals waived their privacy rights by making information public. The document asserts the need for a full investigation to challenge the credibility of accusers and mount an effective defense for their client, who is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00020993.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing analyzing whether two conspiracy counts (Count Three and Count Five) against a defendant should be considered a single conspiracy. The analysis focuses on the 'Korfant' factors, specifically the overlap in time, similarity of operations, and the roles of participants like Sarah Kellen. The document argues that the complete overlap in time periods and similarity in the methods of abuse favor the Defendant's position that there was only one conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
This page from a legal document details the legal framework used by the Second Circuit to determine if multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy, which is relevant to double jeopardy claims. It lists the eight "Korfant factors" and explains the burden-shifting process where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous claim, after which the burden shifts to the government to prove the conspiracies are distinct. The text relies heavily on citations to previous court cases to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated April 29, 2022, analyzes the legal distinctions between two conspiracy charges, Count Three and Count Five. The author argues that despite being charged under the same statute, the counts are not multiplicitous because they have different statutory objectives, legal definitions (e.g., of a 'minor'), and required elements of intent, citing precedents like Macchia, Estrada, and Villa. The document refutes the Government's claim that a single distinguishing factor is dispositive in this analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00010372.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, outlines the Second Circuit's legal framework for determining whether multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy or distinct conspiracies, thereby implicating double jeopardy concerns. It details the eight 'Korfant factors' used in this analysis and describes the burden-shifting framework where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous showing of a single conspiracy, after which the burden shifts to the Government to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009966.jpg
This document is a page from an index for a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. The page covers keywords from 'hardcopies' to 'information' and lists the corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in the full transcript. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters and includes case and document identification numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00009287.jpg
This document is page 65 of a 67-page index from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The index, prepared by Southern District Reporters for a transcript dated February 15, 2012, lists terms alphabetically from 'hardcopies' to 'information' with corresponding page and line numbers. The document is marked with the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009287.
DOJ-OGR-00004719.jpg
This document is page 12 (internal page 8) of a legal filing (Document 295) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Double Jeopardy' and 'jeopardy attachment,' specifically analyzing when a defendant is considered to be at risk of conviction during pretrial dispositions and plea agreements. It heavily cites Second Circuit case law (Dionisio, Vanhoesen, Morris v. Reynolds) to argue that jeopardy does not attach to counts dismissed merely due to an agreement between parties without fact-based resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00005402.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, arguing for the use of pseudonyms for testifying victims. It cites several legal precedents from the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, including the cases of Raniere, Martinez, Schulte, and Hernandez, to support the argument that protecting victims from harassment, embarrassment, and encouraging testimony outweighs defense interests, particularly in sensitive cases like sex trafficking and national security.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity