Watkins
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the case of United States v. Watkins. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014794.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 22, 2022, is a transcript of a judge's ruling regarding a sentencing calculation. The judge finds that two minor victims, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, were trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein and should be considered for sentencing purposes, even though they were not named in the indictment. Citing precedent from the Second Circuit, the judge overrules the defendant's objection and decides to treat the conduct against these two victims as additional counts of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00001454.jpg
This legal document, page 14 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's detention order and for considering a defendant's temporary release. It cites U.S. statutes and several legal precedents, including United States v. Watkins and United States v. Scarborough, to establish that the court applies a 'deferential review' and that a defendant bears the burden of proving temporary release is necessary for their defense or for other compelling reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00001333.jpg
This legal document, page 16 of a filing dated April 12, 2021, outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention. It specifies the factors a court must consider when the government seeks detention for flight risk, as laid out in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3142(g). The document also details the 'deferential review' standard for appealing a detention order and the conditions under which a judicial officer may permit temporary release of a detained individual.
DOJ-OGR-00021590.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, is a transcript of a judge's ruling in Case 22-1426. The judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act does not constitute impermissible 'double counting' on top of the base offense. The judge cites legal precedent, including United States v. Watkins, to support the decision that the enhancement addresses a different facet of harm than the base offense level.
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes two arguments made by the defendant. First, it argues that the standard for the victim's (Carolyn's) behavior is 'undue influence,' not complete lack of voluntary action. Second, it dismisses the defendant's claim of 'double-counting' in sentencing enhancements by citing legal precedents (Watkins, Kohlmeier, Arbaugh) which establish that different guideline provisions can address different harms from the same conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010421.jpg
This document is page 4 of a 29-page legal filing (Document 662) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 15, 2022. It is a table of authorities listing various court cases, statutes such as the 'Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998', and other sources like the Merriam-Webster dictionary and United States Sentencing Guidelines. The page numbers where these authorities are cited within the main document are also provided.
DOJ-OGR-00011566.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial ruling dated July 22, 2022, concerning a sentencing guideline calculation. The judge finds that two individuals, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. The judge overrules a prior decision by the Probation department to exclude them from the calculation and, citing Second Circuit precedent, decides to consider them as additional victims for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00011564.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on July 22, 2022. A judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act case is not impermissible 'double counting'. The judge explains that the enhancement addresses a different type of harm than the base offense level and cites precedent from 'United States v. Watkins' and 'United States v. Kohlmeier' to support the ruling.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity