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-00004866.jpg
This document is page 54 of a legal filing (Exhibit 310-1) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 2, 2021. The text contains legal arguments citing precedents such as *Santobello v. New York* and *Commonwealth v. Zuber* regarding the binding nature of prosecutorial promises and plea agreements under due process principles. It serves as a supporting legal authority, likely arguing that the government must honor previous non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004792.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 307) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 25, 2021. The text argues against Maxwell's attempt to suppress deposition transcripts from a civil case, citing legal precedents (Oshatz, Wong, Knox) to establish that even if a protective order was modified, the testimony can be used, particularly in a perjury trial where the statements themselves are the crime. The government asserts that civil deposition testimony does not violate rights against self-incrimination in this context.
DOJ-OGR-00005793.jpg
This legal filing (Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding sex trafficking, coercive control, and the psychological relationship between pimps and victims. It cites several precedents (Kelly, Torres, Randall, Dupigny) where such testimony was permitted. Specifically, it defends the qualifications of Dr. Rocchio, a Brown University professor with 25 years of clinical experience, noting that the defendant does not contest her expertise.
DOJ-OGR-00002740.jpg
This is the final page (Conclusion) of a legal motion filed on February 23, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Her defense team argues that additional proposed conditions—including renouncing foreign citizenship and asset monitoring—should satisfy the Bail Reform Act. The document lists the defense attorneys representing Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00005563.jpg
This document is page 9 of a 40-page court filing (Document 383) from October 29, 2021, associated with case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The content of the page is completely redacted, showing only the header, page number 8, and the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00005563'.
DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 380) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It contains a Government argument (Section A) requesting the Court preclude the Defense from presenting evidence regarding government charging decisions. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and case law (Rosado, Borrero) to argue that such evidence is irrelevant, hearsay, and likely to confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005339.jpg
This document is Page 17 of a blank Juror Questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains questions 10 through 12, which ask potential jurors about their prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and whether any information they have heard would prevent them from being fair and impartial jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00020384.jpg
This document is a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued on June 7, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court affirms the lower District Court's decisions from December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, thereby denying Maxwell's appeal for bail pending trial. The mandate also notes that any concerns Maxwell has about being deprived of sleep while incarcerated should be addressed to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00020379.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing (Case 21-58) responding to Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints regarding her incarceration conditions at the MDC. The text refutes Maxwell's claims of sewage flooding by clarifying that the cited precedent (Tiffany Days) occurred at the MCC, not the MDC. Additionally, it counters her claim of 'solitary confinement' by detailing her 13-hour daily access to a day room equipped with computers, a phone, and a TV, while noting she requires protective custody for her safety.
DOJ-OGR-00020377.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to an appeal by Maxwell regarding her pretrial confinement conditions. The Government argues that Maxwell's complaints about disruptive nighttime flashlight checks are unsubstantiated and do not demonstrably interfere with her trial preparation. The document also refutes Maxwell's accusations of misrepresentation, clarifying a statement made by Government counsel and explaining an acknowledged inaccuracy in information received from the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020375.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court order denying a renewed motion by an individual named Maxwell for temporary release from confinement. The court relies on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided a compelling reason, such as new evidence or a change in law, to justify reversing its prior decision. The court also dismisses Maxwell's arguments concerning a recent letter briefing and a written order by Judge Nathan, affirming the previous finding that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00020368.jpg
This document page, part of a legal filing from May 2021, details the Government's response to Judge Nathan regarding 'flashlight surveillance' of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It explains that while general population inmates are checked hourly and SHU inmates every 30 minutes, Maxwell is checked every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule' and 'heightened safety and security concerns,' despite not being on suicide watch.
DOJ-OGR-00020367.jpg
This legal document outlines the procedural history of a case involving a defendant named Maxwell. After Maxwell appealed two of Judge Nathan's bail decisions and was denied pretrial release on April 27, 2021, she did not file a renewed motion. Instead, on April 29, 2021, she submitted a letter to Judge Nathan requesting the court to order the MDC to stop or justify the 15-minute light surveillance that was disrupting her sleep.
DOJ-OGR-00020330.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated May 17, 2021, argues that the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, is enduring torturous conditions at MDC Brooklyn. It claims she is deprived of sleep due to flashlight searches every 15 minutes and is denied an eye mask, forcing her to use a sock or towel. The document includes before-and-after photos to show her physical decline after 10 months in custody.
DOJ-OGR-00020327.jpg
This legal document is a renewed motion for bond on behalf of appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated May 17, 2021. The motion argues against the harsh conditions of her confinement, specifically citing sleep deprivation caused by flashlight checks every 15 minutes for over 318 days. The document refutes the government's justifications for these measures—such as suicide risk or the high-profile nature of the case—as nonsensical and abusive.
DOJ-OGR-00020324.jpg
This document is a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated April 27, 2021. The court affirmed previous District Court orders denying bail for Ghislaine Maxwell and denied her motion for temporary pretrial release. The court also noted complaints regarding Maxwell's sleep deprivation while incarcerated, directing her counsel to address those specific conditions with the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00020323.jpg
This is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 27, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court affirms the lower District Court's orders from December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, thereby denying Maxwell's appeal for bail pending trial. The order also notes that any requests for relief regarding her sleeping conditions while incarcerated should be directed to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00002803.jpg
This document is a court filing from March 24, 2021, combining a FedEx shipping label and a court receipt. It documents that attorney David Markus sent a package to the US District Court in New York containing a $505.00 check payment on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' related to case 1:20-cr-00330. The court processed this payment on March 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00005185.jpg
This document is a handwritten page from a legal filing in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed in October 2021. The text contains legal arguments regarding statutory interpretation, specifically concerning definitions of 'sexual abuse' and 'exploitation,' and argues for the application of 'repose' (statute of limitations) based on Supreme Court precedents like *Lockhart*, *Toussie*, and *McElvain*. It criticizes the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of these statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00023228.jpg
This document is a timeline graphic from a Department of Justice report detailing key events surrounding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) analysis in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It tracks internal DOJ communications, victim notifications, and court actions from 2006 to 2008, with an additional sidebar covering legal developments up to 2020. Key events include the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the deferral of victim notification regarding the plea deal, and subsequent court rulings finding that the U.S. violated the CVRA.
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should deny the defendant's motion to preclude co-conspirator statements at trial, asserting the defense has misread a prior court order and is seeking an unprecedented remedy. The Government maintains that its handling of co-conspirator statements aligns with the established law of the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00002702.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on February 4, 2021. The defense argues that the government has failed to provide a 'bill of particulars' specifying the dates and details of alleged interactions with 'Accuser-1' (Minor Victim 1), including travel from Florida to New York for sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein. Citing the legal precedent *Bortnovsky*, the defense claims Maxwell cannot adequately prepare for trial because the allegations span a four-year period without specific dates, despite the government claiming to possess corroborating flight and business records.
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity