Barnes
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Case Agents
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Legal case: United States v. Barnes, No. 3:19-cr-00112-K, ECF No. 355 | N/A | View |
| 1979-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1979-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Court case: United States v. Barnes | 2d Cir. | View |
Epstein_Part_06.pdf
This document contains a series of Deleted Page Information Sheets listing pages withheld from a FOIA release under various exemptions, followed by several FBI internal communications (Electronic Communications and Payment Request forms) concerning the case of Jeffrey Epstein (Case ID 31E-MM-108062). The memos track the opening of sub-files for subpoena and forfeiture matters, updates on forfeiture investigations involving properties in Palm Beach, and interactions with the US Attorney's Office, culminating in a request to close the forfeiture sub-file in 2008 due to state prosecution.
EFTA00011430.pdf
This document is an email chain from September 2021 involving the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS), likely during the lead-up to or during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The correspondence concerns 'Names for tomorrow' to be presented to prospective jurors, listing Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and several other individuals (Cora Friedland, Emily Barnes, Rachel Greene, Christina Hake, Kimberly Savino, Jane Heinerth). It also discusses an attachment titled 'Uncalled_witness.docx' regarding jury instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00021769.jpg
This legal document argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because the court failed to explore potential bias in a seated juror (Juror 50). The filing draws an analogy to the case of Nieves, asserting that the court's refusal to investigate the juror's background related to child sexual abuse—a central theme in Maxwell's case due to her association with Epstein—deprived the defense of the opportunity to challenge the juror for cause. The document contends this failure is particularly significant given the pervasive community bias against those accused of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00021768.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the defense was denied a fair opportunity to expose juror bias during a post-verdict hearing. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Colombo and U.S. v. Greer, to define the constitutional duty of the court to allow for the discovery of bias. The document outlines three types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—to support the proposition that sufficient fact-finding is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021767.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable limitations on the questioning of Juror 50 during a post-verdict hearing. The filing contends that this prevented the defense for Ms. Maxwell from fully exploring the juror's potential bias, which was evidenced when he disclosed his own history of sexual assault to fellow jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations and the final verdict.
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-00009835.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists numerous legal cases, from 1976 to 2021, that are cited as precedent within the main document. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00005792.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for admitting expert testimony in court. It argues that a district court has broad discretion in determining the reliability of such testimony and that it must also be relevant, concerning matters beyond the understanding of an average juror. The document cites several precedents, focusing on cases where courts admitted expert testimony on the psychological dynamics between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes, such as the 'pimp-prostitute relationship' and 'trauma bonding'.
DOJ-OGR-00005381.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 26, 2021, is a submission by the Government to the Court regarding jury selection procedures for an upcoming trial. The Government argues against providing juror identities to the parties weeks in advance, citing precedent that the purpose of voir dire is to identify disqualifications, not to enable deep background research. The Government requests that peremptory challenges be made at the conclusion of voir dire, not on the trial's start date of November 29, 2021, and asks the Court for clarification on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00005326.jpg
This document is page 4 of a proposed juror questionnaire filed in a federal criminal case on October 22, 2021. It contains standard background questions for potential jurors, along with comments reflecting a legal dispute between the defendant and the government. The defense argues for including these detailed questions in the written questionnaire, citing precedent from other high-profile cases, while the government objects, arguing the questions are inappropriate for a written form and are better suited for oral voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 18, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding jury selection (*voir dire*), citing Second Circuit precedents to argue that the court, rather than attorneys, should conduct the questioning of potential jurors to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The filing asserts that the defendant (Maxwell) has provided no persuasive reason to deviate from this customary practice.
DOJ-OGR-00002835.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on August 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text analyzes a Sixth Amendment challenge regarding jury underrepresentation, specifically examining the 'absolute disparity method' for African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master jury wheel. The Court concludes that the statistical disparities (1.25% and 1.15%) are within tolerated legal limits based on Second Circuit precedents and that Schulte has failed to meet the necessary burden for his claim.
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text details the court's analysis of Schulte's 'fair cross-section challenge' regarding the exclusion of African American and Hispanic American jurors under the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA) and the Sixth Amendment. While the court acknowledges these demographics are 'distinctive groups,' it rules that Schulte failed to meet the second and third elements of the Duren test, resulting in the rejection of his challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00002879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing arguing that a subpoena issued by a defendant should be quashed. The filing contends that the subpoena fails to meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), as established in the case United States v. Nixon, because it is an overly broad "fishing expedition" seeking "all communications" with various individuals from the law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity