Eastern District
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
Southern District
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-09 | N/A | Letter sent by John regarding Epstein investigation received via Eastern District U.S. Attorney's... | Eastern District | View |
EFTA00028265.pdf
A joint letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter outlines the Government and Defense positions on protecting witness identities, including the use of pseudonyms (nomenclature), voir dire procedures, jury instructions, and the handling of sealed exhibits to prevent public disclosure of victim identities. The document contains significant redactions regarding the actual names and pseudonyms of the witnesses.
EFTA00025188.pdf
This document is an email dated March 27, 2020, from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to 'John' at raymitevlaw.com. The email acknowledges receipt of a letter dated March 9, 2020, concerning the Epstein investigation. The AUSA requests the identity of the source of the information to pass to the FBI and specifically asks if there are allegations that relevant 'interns' were underage.
DOJ-OGR-00000211.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, likely a brief or memo, discussing the limited scope of various agreements made by different United States Attorney's Offices and divisions of the Department of Justice. It references several legal cases, including United States v. Lafarge S.A., United States v. Goldfield, United States v. Ellison (likely Caroline Ellison), and United States v. Coccagna, providing case numbers, ECF filings, and dates, and notes the non-binding nature of these agreements on other federal, state, local, or foreign authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00000210.tif
This document excerpt details various legal agreements and plea agreements across different U.S. judicial districts, outlining the scope and binding nature of these agreements between defendants and specific United States Attorney offices or divisions of the Department of Justice. It emphasizes which entities are bound by each agreement and which are not. The document includes specific case citations with dates, defendants, and ECF numbers.
DOJ-OGR-00000208.tif
This document, labeled as page 8 of a larger filing (DOJ-OGR-00000208), discusses how the Department of Justice drafts plea agreements with a limited, single-district scope, meaning they typically only bind specific U.S. Attorney's Offices and not the entire Department or other authorities. It provides three examples of such plea agreement language from the Middle District of Alabama, Northern District of Alabama, and Eastern District of California, citing specific court cases and ECF filing numbers with dates in 2023 and 2024.
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00001055.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a speaker is arguing for bail for a defendant. The speaker cites several precedent cases (Esposito, Madoff, Dreier, Deutsch, Conway, and Mattis) to demonstrate that defendants in serious cases, including organized crime, massive financial fraud, and violent acts, have been granted release on bail conditions and have consistently appeared for trial. The argument aims to persuade the judge that release on conditions is appropriate in the current case as well.
DOJ-OGR-00021093.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues points regarding the scope of plea agreements and Double Jeopardy. It analyzes the 'Abbamonte-Alessi rule' and the 'Annabi' precedent to determine if a plea agreement binding 'the Government' applies to other United States Attorney Offices (USAOs). The text argues that for charges to be distinct enough to bypass the rule, they must cover a new time period, noting that in the Annabi case, the conspiracy period was two years longer.
DOJ-OGR-00001928.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The text captures an oral argument by the defense counsel advocating for the defendant's release on bail by citing various legal precedents (Esposito, Madoff, Dreier, Deutsch, Conway, and Mattis). The argument highlights that defendants in cases involving organized crime, massive financial fraud, sex crimes, and even violence (Molotov cocktail) were previously granted bail under strict conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001922.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues for a client's release. The attorney cites a 2005 opinion by Judge Orenstein in *United States v. Turner* to support the argument that while victims have a right to be heard, this right does not constitute a veto over a defendant's release, especially when conditions can be set to ensure the defendant's appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00004719.jpg
This document is page 12 (internal page 8) of a legal filing (Document 295) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Double Jeopardy' and 'jeopardy attachment,' specifically analyzing when a defendant is considered to be at risk of conviction during pretrial dispositions and plea agreements. It heavily cites Second Circuit case law (Dionisio, Vanhoesen, Morris v. Reynolds) to argue that jeopardy does not attach to counts dismissed merely due to an agreement between parties without fact-based resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity