Greene
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Watson
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
N/A (implied primary individual)
|
Collaborator co author |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999-01-01 | Legal decision | The Supreme Court's decision in Strickler v. Greene, cited as an example where an error need not ... | Supreme Court | View |
| 1986-01-01 | N/A | Grant from National Science Foundation (Jury Comprehension--w/Greene-Goodman) | N/A | View |
| 1983-01-01 | N/A | Grant from National Science Foundation (Hypnosis--w/Greene) | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015213.tif
This document is a section from a Curriculum Vitae, detailing academic honors, fellowships, research grants, and awards received by an individual from 1965 to 2019. It lists numerous affiliations with universities, government agencies, and scientific organizations, highlighting contributions to psychology, memory research, and public policy. The document also includes collaborators on various funded projects.
DOJ-OGR-00008400.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The text contains legal arguments discussing case law precedents (*Kyles* and *Watson v. Greene*) regarding the admissibility of evidence related to the thoroughness of a law enforcement investigation and *Brady* material obligations. The text specifically analyzes a precedent involving a shooting investigation to argue about what lines of cross-examination should be permitted regarding police diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
This legal document is page 2 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 3, 2021. The author argues that the government cannot use attorney-client privilege to prevent Ms. Maxwell's team from cross-examining a witness named Jane about a statement her attorney, Mr. Glassman, made to her. The filing contends the privilege does not apply because the communication was not intended to be confidential and, in any case, was waived when it was relayed to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00009136.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that there is no basis to find that 'Juror 50' committed a 'deliberate falsehood' during the jury selection process (voir dire). It cites several legal precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit, to establish that juror misconduct requires proving intentional deceit, not just an honest mistake or failure to answer. The document concludes that the current record does not meet this high threshold to prove dishonesty by Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been struck for cause due to bias revealed in press statements. It cites legal precedent, primarily the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough and the Second Circuit's test in United States v. Stewart, to assert that a new trial can be granted based on a juror's inaccurate voir dire response, even if the response was not deliberately dishonest. The document contends that the key is whether the juror was actually biased and whether a correct answer would have provided grounds for a challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015514.jpg
This document is page 302 of an academic paper authored by M. Hoffman et al., discussing moral psychology, game theory (Nash equilibrium), and the distinction between harm as a 'means' versus a 'by-product.' It cites various studies (Cushman, Greene, DeScioli) and uses examples involving Israel/Hamas, the US drone policy, and Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons to illustrate theories on coordinated punishment and moral intuitions. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was included in a document production to the US House Oversight Committee, though the text itself contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity