8th Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001191.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on December 28, 2020, arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail. The defense argues that the government has conceded its case relies almost entirely on the testimony of three unidentified witnesses regarding events from over 25 years ago, rather than 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence' as previously claimed. The document asserts that existing documentary evidence pertains to Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell, and notes that specific government concessions on this matter are redacted in the text.
DOJ-OGR-00001137.jpg
This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 102) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues she is not a flight risk and that her current detention at the MDC constitutes 'de facto solitary confinement' under conditions more severe than USP Florence ADMAX, hindering her ability to prepare her defense. It claims prison wardens have noted the unprecedented nature of her restrictive regime.
DOJ-OGR-00021113.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between the crimes of producing and possessing child pornography. It analyzes the case of U.S. v. Coutentos, where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a possession conviction, even though it stemmed from the defendant's own production involving the abuse of his granddaughters. The court reasoned that the offense of possession, when considered abstractly, does not inherently involve the sexual abuse of a child within the specific meaning of statute ยง 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00002212.jpg
This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.
DOJ-OGR-00002212(1).jpg
This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.
DOJ-OGR-00001976.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Document 97) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (United States v. Boustani, Bradshaw, Chen, etc.) cited elsewhere in the filing. The page is numbered 'iii' and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00001976.
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-00021709.jpg
This page from a 2023 appellate filing (likely by the government) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four properly qualify as offenses involving sexual abuse of a child, citing testimony from a victim named 'Jane.' It also begins a section defending the District Court's decision regarding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00003138.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, arguing against the misuse of a 'bill of particulars'. It cites numerous court cases to establish the legal precedent that a bill of particulars is not a tool for the defense to compel the Government to disclose its evidence, witnesses, or trial strategy. The document asserts that such a bill is only warranted when an indictment is so vague that it prevents the defendant from preparing a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002955.jpg
This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002948.jpg
This document is page xiii from a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities from Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited within the larger document, providing the case name, legal citation, and the page numbers where each case is referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00005814.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio regarding delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. It cites several legal precedents (Raniere, Young, Betcher) to demonstrate that such testimony is helpful for juries to understand victim behavior. The document also addresses the defendant's specific challenge that Dr. Rocchio is not an expert on memory in general, with the Government conceding that point but affirming her expertise in the relevant field of trauma psychology.
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding 'grooming' and the psychological relationship between sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, citing numerous appellate court precedents (9th, 8th, 10th, 5th, and 2nd Circuits) to support the validity/relevance of such testimony. The filing notes that the defendant is attempting to rely on a single contrary case from the District of Maine.
DOJ-OGR-00020109.jpg
This document is page 2 (filed page 6) of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court should grant bail because the government has conceded its case relies almost exclusively on the testimony of three unidentified witnesses regarding events from over 25 years ago, lacking the 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence' previously promised. The defense asserts that existing documentary evidence pertains to Jeffrey Epstein rather than Maxwell, though specific government concessions on this point are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002836.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against a defendant named Schulte's challenge to the jury selection process. The argument asserts that Schulte fails to prove 'systematic exclusion' because the alleged underrepresentation of minority jurors was due to external factors, not the jury selection system itself, citing multiple legal precedents. Schulte's specific claim that the Government sought an indictment in White Plains to avoid the more diverse jury pool of Manhattan is presented as the core of his foreclosed allegation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity