The Second Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-28 | Legal appeal | Maxwell appealed her conviction and sentence, which was affirmed by the Second Circuit. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
EFTA00032792.pdf
This document contains an email thread from April 2021 between an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) and attorneys Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson regarding the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'. The correspondence discusses scheduling for an in-person arraignment before Judge Nathan and a remote bail appeal before the Second Circuit, and inquires about the attendance of Edwards' client.
DOJ-OGR-00015137.jpg
This legal document details the sentencing and subsequent appeal of a defendant named Maxwell. Judge Nathan imposed a 240-month prison sentence, citing Maxwell's direct and prolonged participation with Jeffrey Epstein in a sex trafficking scheme involving underage girls, and also sentenced her to a $750,000 fine. The document notes that on February 28, 2023, the Second Circuit court affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence, upholding the lower court's rulings on several key issues.
DOJ-OGR-00001084.jpg
This legal document, dated April 1, 2021, is a transcript or filing that outlines the legal framework for a court to order a defendant's detention under U.S. Code Section 3142. It specifies that detention is ordered if no conditions can assure the defendant's appearance and community safety, detailing the standards of evidence for dangerousness and flight risk, and explaining the defendant's burden of production to rebut a presumption of detention as clarified by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00000767.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 5, 2025, is a motion arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the sex-trafficking crimes of Epstein and Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of victims, asserts that transparency is crucial for justice, public understanding, and holding all responsible parties accountable, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit. It emphasizes the victims' desire for full disclosure to illuminate the scope of the abuse and identify those who enabled the criminal enterprise.
DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00020700.jpg
This document is a court docket page from the SDNY regarding US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering events on November 29 and 30, 2021. It details the beginning of the jury trial, orders regarding the production of materials from the Epstein Victims Compensation Program, and the handling of witness privacy and pseudonyms. It lists the legal teams for both the defense and prosecution present during the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00015158.jpg
This legal document discusses the timing of grand jury proceedings as a factor in deciding whether to release information to the public. It contrasts the recent case involving Maxwell and Epstein, where victims are still alive and the events are relatively recent, with historical precedents where the passage of time has diminished the need for secrecy. The argument suggests that the circumstances of the Maxwell case, particularly its recency, weigh against the release of grand jury materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001933.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely an attorney, argues that a woman is not a flight risk for changing her email and phone number. The speaker explains that her personal information was inadvertently released to the public through unsealed court documents related to a case involving Mr. Epstein, leading to her receiving strange emails and her phone being hacked. She kept the hacked phone, which contains correspondence with her counsel, as evidence for her own civil litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been struck for cause due to bias revealed in press statements. It cites legal precedent, primarily the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough and the Second Circuit's test in United States v. Stewart, to assert that a new trial can be granted based on a juror's inaccurate voir dire response, even if the response was not deliberately dishonest. The document contends that the key is whether the juror was actually biased and whether a correct answer would have provided grounds for a challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. ยง 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010174.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a lawyer argues against a finding of 'ineffective assistance of counsel'. The speaker contends that the defense counsel, the Brune & Richard law firm, knowingly withheld information about a juror's 'suspension opinion' before trial, engaging in a prohibited 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy'. This strategic choice, rather than negligence, should defeat the claim of ineffective counsel, according to the argument presented.
DOJ-OGR-00009726.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standards for determining juror bias based on false or misleading answers during voir dire. It cites precedents from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, such as McDonough, Langford, and Clark v. United States. The key argument presented is that a juror who intentionally lies to be selected is not a legitimate juror, and such dishonesty can be grounds for a new trial, outlining the specific tests used in the Second Circuit to prove such bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney argues that the opposing defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The attorney claims the defense knew about a potentially disqualifying issue concerning the 'Brune & Richard law firm' before jury selection but deliberately withheld this information from the court. This action is characterized as an impermissible 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose' strategy, which the speaker contends is sufficient grounds to defeat a finding of ineffective counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00009484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney argues before a judge. The attorney contends that the opposing counsel's failure to properly investigate a witness was not a strategic tactic ('sandbagging') but rather incompetence, carelessness, and an oversight, quoting the Second Circuit's language. The speaker believes this failure to act constitutes prejudice and that the opposing side "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 122 of 239) by the Government opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss Counts Five and Six. The Government argues that suppression is unwarranted because the contested materials, specifically Maxwell's 2016 deposition transcripts, were already unsealed in civil litigation by Judge Preska and affirmed by the Second Circuit, making them subject to 'inevitable discovery.' Footnote 42 discusses the defendant's failed attempt to modify a protective order to use criminal discovery materials in her civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00005271.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argues against a defendant's request to seal the juror questionnaire and voir dire process from the public. Citing multiple legal precedents, the filing asserts that there is a strong presumption of openness and the defense has failed to meet the 'heavy burden' of proof required to justify such secrecy. The document urges the court to deny the defendant's request and order the materials to be filed on the public docket.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity