Stewart
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Robert Pattinson
|
Romantic |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Department of Justice
|
Employment |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-09 | Legal case | Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2012-02-01 | N/A | WME Party at Ari Emanuel's estate | Brentwood estate | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal decision | The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Stewart, which framed a test for undisclosed ju... | The Second Circuit | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case Stewart. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The Second Circuit affirmed the decision in United States v. Stewart. | Second Circuit | View |
| 2005-03-15 | N/A | Manhattan bash / Cipriani Wall Street event | Cipriani Wall Street, Manha... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case of United States v. Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) was decided. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
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-00009047.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell can meet the burden of proof to show the juror's dishonesty and that the court should infer bias, citing legal precedents to support its claims. The filing suggests that video evidence of the juror being confronted with the false answers supports the claim of intentional deception.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg
This document is Page 34 of 66 from a legal filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments concerning juror misconduct and bias, citing precedents such as *United States v. Langford*, *United States v. Stewart*, and *Clark v. United States* to establish that a new trial may be warranted if a juror provides false answers during voir dire. The text emphasizes Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards for determining when a juror's dishonesty invalidates a trial.
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-00010352.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text addresses the controversy surrounding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The Court argues that even if the abuse had been disclosed, it would not have been grounds for a 'for-cause' challenge, provided the juror could remain impartial. The document emphasizes that victims of crimes (like fraud or murder) are not automatically disqualified from serving on juries for similar cases. A footnote details statistics regarding prospective jurors who answered 'yes' to Question 48 about abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010348.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's argument that 'Juror 50' was biased based on post-trial statements claiming the verdict was for the victims. The text discusses implied bias related to the juror's personal history of sexual abuse and references legal precedents regarding post-trial juror statements.
DOJ-OGR-00010344.jpg
This legal document details the court's analysis of contradictions in Juror 50's statements and actions regarding his past sexual abuse. The Defendant argues that the juror's claim of reluctance to disclose his abuse is undermined by his post-trial media interviews and a social media comment to witness Annie Farmer. In response to the Court's questioning, Juror 50 explained that he did not believe his family or friends would find out about these public disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009887.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a court case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text argues against the government's position by analyzing several legal precedents, including McDonough, Shaoul, Langford, and Greer, concerning the standard for proving juror bias and granting a new trial. The author contends that a deliberate falsehood by a juror is not a prerequisite for a new trial, citing cases that establish a multi-part test where juror dishonesty is one of several factors to consider.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
DOJ-OGR-00009838.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues against the necessity of a hearing based on an anonymous juror's report of misconduct. It cites legal precedents, including United States v. Stewart and United States v. Guzman Loera, to establish that a high standard of "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence" is required, which anonymous tips do not meet. The document details the Guzman Loera case as an example where similar allegations of jurors being exposed to prejudicial media did not result in an evidentiary hearing, reinforcing the argument that the current situation does not warrant one either.
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that there is no evidence Juror 50 deliberately lied about his social media use, but acknowledges an inconsistency between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to a questionnaire. The Government agrees that a limited evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine if the juror answered falsely and whether it was intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing from March 11, 2022, outlines the legal standards and strong judicial disfavor for post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, it explains that such inquiries threaten the finality of verdicts and the integrity of the jury system. The document also details the strict, two-part test a defendant must satisfy to obtain a new trial based on a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire, requiring proof of both dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have warranted a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009738.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell has met the burden of proof for this claim, citing legal precedents and suggesting that video evidence of the juror being confronted supports the allegation of intentional falsehood. The ultimate goal is to argue for the juror's implied or actual bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
DOJ-OGR-00009445.jpg
This legal document is a court order from the First Judicial Department regarding attorney Catherine M. Conrad. The court grants the Departmental Disciplinary Committee's motion to suspend Conrad indefinitely due to a medical disability related to her admitted alcohol dependency. The court denies Conrad's cross-motion for immediate reinstatement, stating she has not yet met the burden of proving her fitness to resume the practice of law.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005210.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 13, 2021. The defense argues for 'individual voir dire' during jury selection, citing the 'tsunami' of negative pretrial publicity surrounding Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein since Epstein's arrest in July 2019 and death in August 2019. The text references Supreme Court precedent regarding the necessity of questioning jurors individually to avoid bias in high-profile cases.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019470.jpg
This document is a DailyMail article excerpt included in House Oversight evidence (ID 019470). It details Virginia Roberts Giuffre's account of a trip to the Caribbean where Ghislaine Maxwell piloted a helicopter to pick up Bill Clinton. The text highlights Epstein's claim that Clinton 'owed him favours' and describes a dinner involving Clinton, Epstein, Maxwell, and young women flown in from New York.
United States Extradition Treaties
Overview of international extradition processes, treaty updates, and instructions to contact the Office of International Affairs for status updates.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity