Ruggiero
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00015149.jpg
This legal document describes the process of two separate grand jury proceedings related to indictments against an individual named Maxwell. It details that on June 29, 2020, and March 29, 2021, grand juries heard testimony from an FBI agent and an NYPD detective, respectively, who presented hearsay evidence summarizing the government's investigation. The document outlines the exhibits presented and the subsequent indictments returned by the juries.
DOJ-OGR-00022074.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing dated April 24, 2020. It outlines the Government's legal obligation under the Due Process Clause, as established by the landmark cases Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense. The text defines what constitutes "material" evidence and discusses legal precedents that clarify the scope and limitations of this disclosure requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00022067.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 34-page legal filing (Document 35 in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT), filed on April 24, 2020. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases cited within the main document, such as United States v. Payne and United States v. Pelullo. Each entry includes the full legal citation and the page number(s) where the case is referenced in the filing.
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-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-00005719.jpg
This legal document argues that certain proffered documents cannot be authenticated as required by Federal Rules of Evidence. The filing suggests the documents, which surfaced in 2009, were likely manipulated or manufactured by Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee of Mr. Epstein, in an attempt to secure a $50,000 payment. The document asserts there is no evidence linking the creation or maintenance of these documents to Ms. Maxwell or any other credible source.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity