Judge Marra
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
prosecutors from the Southern District of Florida
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lee
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Judicial |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case but allowed her participation as a witness. | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of RICO claim | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | Litigation | Extensive litigation occurred before Judge Marra regarding the failure of prosecutors to notify v... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal rulings by Judge Marra regarding the case status. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Marra issues opinion that prosecutors violated the CVRA. | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Marra issued orders to show cause why default judgments shouldn't be entered. | Federal Court | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing by Jane Doe 1 and 2 in the Florida CVRA case. | Florida | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | Summary Judgment Order entered by Judge Marra finding the Government violated the CVRA. | SD Florida Court | View |
| 2016-02-21 | N/A | Summary Judgment Order issued by Judge Marra describing Epstein's trafficking operation. | United States District Court | View |
| 2015-01-23 | N/A | Expected ruling by Judge Marra. | Court | View |
| 2010-06-25 | N/A | Court order affirming magistrate judge's discovery orders. | Court | View |
| 2010-04-01 | N/A | Court Order Granting Motion to Transfer | Miami, Florida | View |
| 2009-06-12 | N/A | Court appearance before Judge Marra to address if Epstein's defense breaches the Non-Prosecution ... | Court | View |
| 2009-05-14 | N/A | Judge Marra entered an Order Consolidating Cases for discovery and procedural motions. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2009-03-25 | N/A | Judge Marra enters Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Seize Further Assets. | West Palm Beach, FL | View |
| 2009-03-17 | N/A | Court hearings regarding motion to seize assets. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-08-14 | N/A | Hearing with Judge Marra | Court (implied) | View |
| 2008-07-11 | N/A | Hearing held before Judge Marra on the Crime Victims' Rights Act action where the plea agreement ... | N/A | View |
| 2008-07-11 | N/A | Hearing regarding Crime Victims' Rights Act where the non-prosecution agreement was described. | Court of Judge Marra | View |
| 2008-07-11 | N/A | Hearing before Judge Marra where the non-prosecution agreement was described. | Court | View |
| 2007-09-18 | N/A | Hearing regarding Epstein's Computer Equipment (date inferred as 'a week from today' relative to ... | West Palm Beach (implied by... | View |
| 2007-09-18 | N/A | Hearing on Epstein Motion to Quash | Judge Marra | View |
| 2007-09-12 | N/A | Proposed hearing on Epstein's motion to quash. | Southern District of Florid... | View |
| -2008-08-26 | N/A | Hearing on plaintiffs' motion in Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. United States. | Court | View |
020.pdf
Transcript of the initial appearance and arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The government argues for pretrial detention, citing extreme flight risk due to wealth/private jets and danger to the community based on evidence found in his home (photos of minors) and potential witness tampering. The defense pleads not guilty, argues the conduct is 'ancient' (2002-2005), and claims a 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement covers the conduct; a full detention hearing is scheduled for July 11.
061.pdf
This document is a Supplemental Appendix filed by Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. in a Florida state court case involving Jeffrey Epstein. It contains a transcript of a June 2009 hearing regarding the unsealing of court records, administrative orders, case law, and federal court filings including a declaration by AUSA A. Marie Villafana regarding the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The appendix documents the legal arguments surrounding the transparency of the Epstein proceedings and the government's interaction with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
060.pdf
This document is a response filed by Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. (The Palm Beach Post) to an emergency petition for writ of certiorari by Jeffrey Epstein. The Post argues that the trial court correctly unsealed a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its addendum related to Epstein's solicitation of minors, asserting that the documents were improperly sealed in the first instance and that no valid legal basis exists for their continued closure.
055.pdf
This document is a transcript of court proceedings from June 26, 2009, regarding State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein. The hearing concerns a 'Motion to Stay' filed by Epstein's defense to prevent the immediate release of sealed documents, specifically a Non-Prosecution Agreement (MPA) and grand jury materials, pending an appeal. The Judge denies the indefinite stay and the request for a bond but grants a short delay until the following Thursday to allow the defense time to file with the appellate court. The document also touches on potential redactions of children's names, which the Judge notes were not actually found in the documents in question.
017-19.pdf
Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an emergency motion to hold Jeffrey Epstein in contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders in a civil case (08-CV-80893). The motion alleges that Epstein failed to produce state criminal discovery materials and provided only heavily redacted correspondence with the U.S. Attorney's Office, obscuring the defense counsel's side of the communications. Doe seeks immediate production of unredacted documents, sanctions of $5,000 against Epstein's counsel, and a ruling that withheld materials be deemed admissible at trial.
033.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell. Edwards argues that Maxwell's requests for his communications with 'prospective witnesses' are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek protected attorney work-product. The filing notably alleges that Maxwell has failed to explain her presence on 23 flights with a teenaged Virginia Giuffre or the message pads documenting underage girls calling Epstein's mansion for 'massages'.
013.pdf
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
012-02.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated April 1, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309). The order grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer the case to Judge Marra's Division to be consolidated with eleven similar pending actions under the lead case Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 08-80119).
001-01.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on March 31, 2010, initiating a federal lawsuit by plaintiff 'C.L.' against Jeffrey Epstein. The cause of action is cited as sexual assault of a minor under 18 U.S.C §2255 and §2422. The document lists Epstein's legal team, including Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart, and Robert Critton, and references numerous related federal cases.
EFTA00021441.pdf
An email from an attorney representing Jane Doe 1 and 2 discussing legal arguments in the Florida CVRA case against Jeffrey Epstein. The sender highlights a filing arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is limited solely to Florida crimes and does not extend to New York, countering a motion by Epstein's lawyer Marty Weinberg. The email notes that the victims were explicitly told in 2013 that the NPA was jurisdictionally limited.
EFTA00014540.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2019 between an attorney representing victims (Jane Doe 1 and 2) and likely prosecutors or investigators. The discussion centers on the legal argument that the Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not extend to New York, a key point in the prosecution of Epstein. The attorney updates the recipients on recent filings in the Florida CVRA case, specifically mentioning motions by Epstein's lawyer, Marty Weinberg, and coordinates a phone call to discuss Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) expertise.
EFTA00014538.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2019 discussing legal proceedings related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Jeffrey Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). An attorney representing victims 'Jane Doe 1 and 2' updates other parties (likely government officials or other counsel) on recent filings, arguing that the NPA does not extend to New York and is limited to Florida crimes. The thread also notes a recent motion by Epstein's lawyer, Marty Weinberg, regarding the scope of the NPA.
EFTA00014536.pdf
An email thread from July 2019 between a lawyer representing Jane Doe 1 and 2 (likely Paul Cassell based on Utah Bar mention) and an investigator/official. The lawyer updates the recipient on recent filings in the Florida CVRA case, specifically arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is limited to Florida and does not extend to New York, a point relevant to ongoing investigations. The recipient requests a call to discuss the lawyer's expertise on the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
EFTA00014173.pdf
An email thread between US Attorneys (USAFLS) and the FBI discussing upcoming court dates in June 2009 regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The Assistant US Attorney expresses the belief that Epstein is in breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement due to recent legal filings by his counsel and notes that they may need to file an indictment by July 24th, 2009. The thread also mentions motions by the Palm Beach Post to unseal the agreement.
EFTA00014144.pdf
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers, Jay Lefkowitz and Roy Black, dated August 26, 2008. The letter confirms a 'final list' of 32 victims, discusses the logistics of victim notification letters, and demands confirmation of payment for Mr. Josefsberg's fees. It also explicitly warns that if Epstein breaches the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the Office intends to indict him.
EFTA00013831.pdf
This document is an email dated August 14, 2008, from an Assistant U.S. Attorney to Roy Black and 'Jay' (defense attorneys). It summarizes the results of a hearing with Judge Marra, who ordered that the 'Agreement' (likely the Non-Prosecution Agreement) be disclosed to victims and their counsel under a protective order, but further disclosure disputes must be litigated directly with Mr. Epstein in civil suits.
EFTA00013664.pdf
An internal email, likely between staff at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS), dated July 17, 2008. The email discusses a procedural blunder by Jeffrey Epstein and his legal team in four federal lawsuits filed by attorney Jeff Herman. The sender notes that Epstein ignored mailed complaints to avoid service, leading Judge Marra to issue orders to show cause for default judgments totaling potentially $200 million.
EFTA00013608.pdf
An email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney dated September 11, 2007, regarding a hearing about Jeffrey Epstein's computer equipment. The email confirms Judge Marra has scheduled a hearing for the following Tuesday at 9:00 AM, notes that a witness will appear before the grand jury that afternoon, and mentions the prosecutor is contacting attorney Roy Black.
EFTA00013496.pdf
An email chain from September 11, 2007, between Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS). The discussion concerns an urgent call from Judge Marra's Courtroom Deputy (CRD) regarding scheduling a hearing for the next morning on Jeffrey Epstein's 'motion to quash'. The attorneys coordinate a response, with the final email confirming a message was left.
EFTA00013480.pdf
This document is a digital calendar entry record from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS). It schedules a 'Hearing on Epstein Motion to Quash' for September 18, 2007, before Judge Marra. The record was organized by a user associated with 'AVILLAFANA' and includes redacted attendees from the USAFLS.
EFTA00013466.pdf
This document is a digital calendar entry for a legal hearing titled 'Hearing on Epstein Motion to Quash' scheduled for September 18, 2007. The location is listed as 'Judge Marra', and the entry is classified as 'X-PERSONAL'. The record shows creation and modification dates in 2015, suggesting a later data extraction or system migration.
EFTA00009229.pdf
This document is a transcript of an interview conducted by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility with R. Alexander Acosta on October 18, 2019. The interview focuses on Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in 2007. The transcript details discussions regarding the intake of the case, the assessment of evidence and legal issues including the petite policy, management decisions, and interactions with defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000423.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, involving the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense attorney is arguing against the government's motion for detention, claiming that double jeopardy applies, that the issue is not trafficking, and that Epstein is not a flight risk given his compliance with law enforcement surveillance in Florida over the previous decade. The attorney suggests traditional bail remedies such as a large cash bond, passport relinquishment, and electronic monitoring.
DOJ-OGR-00000419.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 16, 2019, capturing a dialogue between Mr. Weingarten and the Court. The discussion centers on a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida, referencing a prior ruling by Judge Marra who found that prosecutors failed to properly notify victims about the deal. The Court also inquires about the geographic limitations of such agreements, a point Mr. Weingarten identifies as a key issue for future pretrial motions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017936.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal complaint filed on April 16, 2019, by Virginia L. Giuffre against Alan Dershowitz. It outlines the nature of the action, stating the suit arises from defamatory statements by Dershowitz, and details Giuffre's victimization by Jeffrey Epstein between 2000-2002. The document cites a 2016 order by Judge Marra describing Epstein's trafficking scheme and explicitly alleges that Dershowitz was one of the persons with whom Epstein acted in concert to abuse minors.
DE 324
Order striking allegations but allowing Jane Doe 3 to reassert details; denied Giuffre's motion to join but allowed witness participation.
DE 325
Supplemental order stating victims may re-refile documents omitting stricken portions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity