Hitchcock
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
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-00019612.jpg
This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.
DOJ-OGR-00019376.jpg
Page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text contains legal arguments regarding the timing of appellate reviews, specifically citing precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that immediate appeals are generally not granted if post-judgment relief (like a reversal after a trial) can adequately protect the defendant's rights. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00019358.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Maxwell's complaint regarding the unsealing of civil case filings. The author contends that any resulting unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case is not a matter for immediate appeal, but rather an issue that can be reviewed and remedied after a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including Hitchcock, Mohawk Indus., United States v. Sabhnani, and United States v. Elfgeeh, to support the position that post-judgment appeals are the proper venue to address concerns of publicity-biased juries.
DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020. It argues against the immediate appeal of a district court's pretrial decision, asserting that any potential harm to the defendant, Punn, can be adequately remedied through the standard appellate process after a final judgment. The text cites several legal precedents, including Mohawk Indus. and United States v. Hitchcock, to support the principle that post-conviction review is sufficient to protect a defendant's rights, even in cases involving purportedly ill-gotten evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019624.jpg
Page 17 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Oct 2, 2020) produced by the DOJ. The text contains legal arguments citing various precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that appellate review should generally wait until a final judgment is entered, rather than allowing immediate interlocutory appeals, particularly regarding pre-trial discovery or evidence rulings.
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (*Commonwealth v. Taylor*) discussing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents to argue that the privilege applies broadly in both criminal and civil/administrative proceedings. The document emphasizes that the right accompanies a person regardless of the legal proceeding type.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity