Tenth Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001301.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Case 4:17-cr-02949-MV) dated February 3, 2021. It argues for the pretrial release of a defendant named Mr. Robertson under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) to allow him to prepare for his trial scheduled for April 5, 2021. The text cites various legal precedents regarding temporary release for defense preparation. Note: While the user requested an 'Epstein-related' analysis, this specific page pertains to a 'Mr. Robertson' and does not contain direct text references to Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00001297.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on February 6, 2020, regarding 'Mr. Robertson' (Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV). The court discusses the legal standards for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 and finds that Mr. Robertson has successfully rebutted the presumption of detention. Factors cited for his release include his voluntary surrender, family ties, and placement at La Pasada Halfway House.
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) claim that one of the jurors, Juror 50, was biased. The defendant cites other legal cases (Afshar, Burton) to support the claim, but the court distinguishes the facts and finds Juror 50 was not biased, noting his credible testimony about his past abuse. The court also dismisses the argument that Juror 50's post-trial interviews and social media activity are evidence of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text records a judge providing legal guidance regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence under Rule 613(b). The judge cites specific case law (Almonte, Leonardi) to explain that law enforcement notes generally do not prove inconsistency unless the witness subscribed to them or the interviewing officer is called as a witness.
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-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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity