district court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Judicial hierarchy review |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judge juror inquiry |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Weingarten
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Litigant judiciary |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Punn
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Appellate Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant court |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant court motions denied |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror Payton
|
Participant in court proceedings |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | District Court denies Maxwell's motion for a new trial. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's findings and application of sentencing guidelines, including a four-level leader... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion denied by District Court without an evidentiary hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion for a new trial denied by District Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury deliberations during which a note was sent to the District Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's determination not to directly respond to the jury note regarding Count Four. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing on potential juror misconduct involving Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury instruction on Count Four, requiring finding that Maxwell transported Jane for sexual activity. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the District Court's response. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appealed the District Court's denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell sentenced to 240 months imprisonment (above guidelines range of 188-235 months). | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing on potential juror misconduct regarding Juror 50. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury sent a note asking if aiding in the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico constitut... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 33 Motion Ruling | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denied Maxwell's motion for reconsideration. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing of Ms. Maxwell | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denied Maxwell's motion. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell to 240 months imprisonment. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of Rule 33 motion for a new trial. | SDNY | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Evidentiary hearing regarding the scope of the plea agreement. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of Motion for New Trial | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of motion to dismiss indictment | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Special Evidentiary Hearing | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where fines were imposed. | District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019686.jpg
This legal document is the final page of a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. The court dismisses an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell, citing a lack of merit in her arguments, and also denies a motion to consolidate as moot. The order is signed by the Clerk of the Court, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00019685.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Case 20-3061. The court dismisses Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of a District Court's denial to modify a protective order, ruling it lacks jurisdiction because the order is not immediately appealable. The court also declines to issue a writ of mandamus and denies Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case Guiffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019680.jpg
This legal document, dated October 19, 2020, is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Case 20-3061. The court dismisses an appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell concerning an unsealing order, finding her arguments to be without merit. The court also denies a motion to consolidate as moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019679.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order. The court rules it lacks jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order, denies her request for a writ of mandamus finding no abuse of discretion by the District Court, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*.
DOJ-OGR-00019667.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, arguing on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text requests that the appellate court reverse a district court order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. It references the 'Martindell' legal standard and accuses the government of trying to shield itself from a forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019641.jpg
This legal document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that unsealing materials from a past civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) would prejudice her current criminal trial. The author refutes this by contrasting her resolved 2017 civil case with another, active case (Doe v. Indyke), arguing the procedural differences justify the Government's different actions in each. The document concludes that unsealing documents in the Giuffre case poses no risk to the Government's criminal case as discovery is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00019640.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order is moot. The text details that Judge Nathan has already authorized Maxwell to inform Judge Preska (under seal) about specific facts learned during criminal discovery regarding government subpoenas, which Maxwell claims is necessary to argue for a stay on unsealing deposition materials. It also notes that Maxwell's criminal charges include allegations of perjury in civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
This document is page 24 (PDF page 30) of a legal brief filed by the Government on October 2, 2020. It argues that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in denying Maxwell's request to modify a Protective Order. The text asserts that Maxwell failed to explain why criminal discovery materials were necessary for pending civil litigation or relevant to First Amendment issues regarding public docketing.
DOJ-OGR-00017342.jpg
This document is page 9 of 16 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page captures the very end of a proceeding session where a speaker dismisses someone or calls for a break, followed immediately by a formal recess notation. The majority of the page is blank, marked 'Continued on next page'.
DOJ-OGR-00013514.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony establishes that when Epstein first bought a specific property (implied to be the New Mexico ranch), the main house was not built, and Epstein stayed in a trailer while the witness stayed in a bunkhouse at 'Ranch Central.' The questioning then pivots to discuss where Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell lived in New York starting in 1990.
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009831.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments citing case law (Gagnon, Moten, Calbas) regarding the standards for post-verdict jury inquiries. The Government argues that the standard for a hearing has been met specifically regarding 'Juror 50' due to inconsistencies between the juror's public statements about being a sexual abuse victim and their answer to Question 48 on the juror questionnaire. The Government consents to a hearing to determine if Juror 50 deliberately lied.
DOJ-OGR-00009829.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, discusses the legal standard for dismissing a juror based on "inferred bias." It cites several precedents, including *Torres*, *Greer*, and *Ploof*, to establish that such a dismissal is at the discretion of the trial court and requires a high standard of proof, typically developed during voir dire. The text argues that the court would not have struck Juror 50 for inferred bias based on a hypothetical disclosure of sexual abuse, and distinguishes the defendant's reliance on the *Torres* case, where a juror was struck for cause due to involvement in structuring cash deposits.
DOJ-OGR-00009821.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 643) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains the Government's legal argument arguing that the Defendant's claims regarding juror bias are unpersuasive. The text defines 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias, citing precedents such as United States v. Torres and Smith v. Phillips to argue that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in a post-trial context.
DOJ-OGR-00009754.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing 'Brown v. Maxwell' and 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.' regarding the definition of 'judicial documents' and the presumption of public access. The filing argues specifically against releasing 'Juror No. 50's pleadings,' claiming that doing so would generate prejudicial publicity and infringe upon Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a request by Ms. Maxwell to the Court for pre-hearing discovery. She asks the court to authorize subpoenas for the communications of Juror No. 50, who is alleged to have answered a question falsely during voir dire. The request seeks emails and other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors in the case to investigate potential juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009737.jpg
This document is page 45 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Inferred bias' and 'Actual bias' in jurors, citing the precedent case 'Torres' extensively. It argues that bias should be inferred when a juror's past experiences or conduct closely approximate that of the defendant, implying this legal standard applies to the current case (likely referring to Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial).
DOJ-OGR-00009724.jpg
This legal document outlines the appellate history of a case concerning juror bias. The district court denied a new trial, the court of appeals reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court then reversed the court of appeals, establishing a new, stricter legal standard for when a juror's failure to disclose information during voir dire warrants a new trial. The case was ultimately remanded for an evidentiary hearing under this new standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009521.jpg
This is a separator or cover page for 'Exhibit G' within a legal filing. It displays multiple case headers, indicating the document was originally filed on March 15, 2013, in case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, and subsequently refiled or processed in October 2022. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00009521).
DOJ-OGR-00003187.jpg
This page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in 2021) summarizes findings regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The report concludes that while Alexander Acosta made the pivotal decision to defer to a state-based plea and approved the NPA, neither he nor the other subject attorneys committed professional misconduct under OPR standards, as Acosta had 'plenary authority' to resolve the case. The document also addresses the District Court's previous finding that the USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003109.jpg
This document is page 175 (labeled 148 internally) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It argues legal points regarding perjury counts, specifically discussing materiality standards for false statements in civil depositions and citing case law (Kross, Gaudin, Kungys). The text argues that a jury can follow limiting instructions to separate the substance of Giuffre's allegations from the determination of whether the defendant committed perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00003104.jpg
This document is page 170 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents a legal argument supporting the joinder of perjury charges with substantive offenses, citing the precedent of *United States v. Ruiz* regarding a NY State Senator who lied to conceal a financial scheme. The prosecution argues that, like in *Ruiz*, the current defendant's perjury was part of a common scheme to conceal her role in the charged sexual offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00003047.jpg
This document is page 113 of a legal filing by the Government in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The Government argues that Maxwell lacks standing to challenge the seizure of materials (specifically deposition transcripts) from the law firm Boies Schiller because she had no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in them and voluntarily participated in the deposition. Additionally, the Government asserts that even if she had standing, the evidence should not be suppressed because the Government acted in 'good faith' pursuant to a court order.
DOJ-OGR-00004901.jpg
This court transcript details a discussion about a protective order that the presiding judge believes is on 'precarious footing'. The order was granted years prior by Judge Sweet, who is now deceased, making it difficult to ascertain the original reasoning. The judge and Mr. Rossmiller debate whether the Second Circuit would or should handle an inquiry involving 150 litigation documents to resolve the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00004870.jpg
This document is page 58 of 80 from a legal filing (likely a brief or opinion) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text analyzes legal precedents, specifically *Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland*, to argue that prosecutors must be held to their promises and assurances to defendants, particularly when a defendant relies on those promises to their detriment. The page discusses the concepts of specific performance, due process, and plea agreements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity