Daugerdas
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
David
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Parse
|
Co defendants |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Business introduction | Shih introduced David and his partner Rod McKay to Daugerdas. | N/A | View |
| 2012-01-01 | Legal proceeding | A new trial was granted to three defendants in United States v. Daugerdas based on juror dishones... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2012-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Court case: United States v. Daugerdas | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2010-03-04 | N/A | Grand jury returned a third superseding Indictment charging Parse and others. | Court | View |
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-00021005.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order (Document 657) filed on April 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and 'prejudicial variance' or 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Second Circuit cases) to define the standards for determining if a defendant was convicted of a crime different from the one charged in the indictment. The Court denies the Defendant's motion on this basis.
DOJ-OGR-00020974.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) challenge to the impartiality of a juror, Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines that his inadvertent nondisclosure about past sexual abuse does not constitute deliberate lying to be selected for the jury. The court rejects the defendant's argument that similarities between the juror's personal history and the case issues warrant a finding of implied bias, distinguishing this situation from other legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021748.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and statutes cited within the main document, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed primarily involve the United States as a party against various individuals and corporations in different federal courts.
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
DOJ-OGR-00009197.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing concerning Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's alleged false answers necessitate a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent, and that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to a full adversarial hearing, not the narrow one proposed by the government. The filing draws parallels to the United States v. Daugerdas case to support its claim for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009045.jpg
This document is page 44 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'inferable bias' in jury selection, citing precedents such as *United States v. Torres*, *Daugerdas*, and *Greer*. It specifically discusses a scenario where a juror might be dismissed if their past experiences (such as structuring cash transactions) are too similar to the incidents giving rise to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009038.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from February 24, 2022, defines and analyzes the concept of "implied bias" as a basis for challenging potential jurors. It cites numerous legal precedents to explain that implied bias is presumed by law, regardless of a juror's stated impartiality, especially when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated. The document provides examples from past cases, such as jurors who were victims of crimes similar to those in the case they were hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg
This document is Page 34 of 66 from a legal filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments concerning juror misconduct and bias, citing precedents such as *United States v. Langford*, *United States v. Stewart*, and *Clark v. United States* to establish that a new trial may be warranted if a juror provides false answers during voir dire. The text emphasizes Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards for determining when a juror's dishonesty invalidates a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. It cites multiple legal precedents to underscore the critical importance of the voir dire process, which must provide defendants with a full and fair opportunity to uncover potential juror bias. The text establishes that ensuring an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of constitutional law and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010354.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell) challenge to the impartiality of Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines he did not deliberately lie to be selected, distinguishing his situation from a precedent case (Sampson) involving extensive dishonesty. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that Juror 50 was biased due to similarities between his personal history of sexual abuse and the trial's subject matter, noting the defendant's nuanced argument for implied or inferred bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010353.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The court analyzes and rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that Juror 50 was biased due to dishonest answers on a jury questionnaire. The court distinguishes this case from precedents involving deliberate deception, crediting Juror 50's explanation that his nondisclosure was an 'inadvertent mistake' resulting from personal distractions and 'skimming' the form.
DOJ-OGR-00010311.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 was incapable of being impartial due to his own past trauma of childhood sexual abuse, which was highly similar to that of the victims in the case. The filing cites multiple legal precedents where jurors were dismissed or new trials were granted for failing to disclose such biasing personal experiences. The document further contends that Juror 50's decision to speak to the international press after the trial to 'tell his story' demonstrates his deep identification with the victims and confirms his bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010193.jpg
This legal document, a letter from Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, argues on behalf of a client named David. It contends that while David was convicted for 'backdating' transactions, the jury's acquittal on more serious tax evasion and conspiracy charges suggests they believed he was unaware of the illegality of the Jenkins tax shelter scheme itself. The letter posits that David was given comfort by the participation of major entities like Deutsche Bank and believed he was exploiting a legal 'loophole'.
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009876.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's presence, due to alleged false answers and bias, requires a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent in 'United States v. Martinez-Salazar'. The filing asserts that the government's proposed narrow hearing would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights and argues that precedent from 'United States v. Daugerdas' supports her entitlement to a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009729.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that defines and discusses the concept of "implied bias" in the context of jury selection. It cites several legal precedents (Torres, Haynes, Sampson, etc.) to explain that implied bias is presumed by law and is determined by the juror's circumstances, not their stated ability to be impartial. The text highlights that bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated, providing examples from cases involving murder and burglary.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity