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-00001419.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 17, 2021. Attorneys Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus serve as counsel requesting the district court to conduct a hearing regarding the conditions of their client's confinement. The document lists the contact information and bar numbers for both attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00001416.jpg
This legal document excerpt details the defense's arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding her treatment at MDC Brooklyn. The defense claims the government and court are unfairly handling evidence, specifically a videotape of an incident that would allegedly disprove statements made by MDC staff. The document also highlights the defense's frustration with the court's dismissal of their complaints about jail conditions, such as guards flashing a light in Ms. Maxwell's cell every 15 minutes.
DOJ-OGR-00001412.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated May 17, 2021, argues that defendant Ghislaine Maxwell is enduring 'tortuous conditions' during her 10-month detention at MDC Brooklyn. It highlights sleep deprivation caused by flashlight searches every 15 minutes and includes a before-and-after photo to show the alleged physical deterioration of Maxwell. The filing quotes MDC legal counsel stating Maxwell cannot be provided with an eye mask.
DOJ-OGR-00001409.jpg
This legal document is a renewed motion for bond on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that her pre-trial confinement conditions are grueling, citing over 318 days in solitary with sleep deprivation caused by flashlight checks every 15 minutes. The motion refutes the government's justifications for these measures—such as suicide risk or the high-profile nature of the case—as nonsensical and unsupported by evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001406.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. 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 decisions from December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, to deny Maxwell's requests for bail pending trial. The order also notes that Maxwell's complaints about sleep deprivation during incarceration should be directed to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001405.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 27, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court affirms the District Court's previous orders from December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, and denies Maxwell's appeal for bail pending trial. The order also notes that any requests regarding Maxwell's sleeping conditions while incarcerated should be directed to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001334.jpg
This document represents page 17 of a legal brief filed on April 12, 2021, arguing against the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not err in denying bail, citing Maxwell as a flight risk and noting the strength of the Government's evidence, which includes multiple victims and documentary corroboration. It discusses legal standards for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) and cites relevant case law.
DOJ-OGR-00001332.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely an appellate brief by the government) dated April 12, 2021. It argues that Judge Nathan properly denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motions for bail and temporary release because she is a flight risk. The text outlines the applicable law regarding pretrial detention and the statutory presumption against release for offenses involving minor victims.
DOJ-OGR-00001322.jpg
This legal document describes the initial bail hearing for a defendant named Maxwell, which took place on July 14, 2020. During the hearing, Judge Nathan heard arguments and received statements from victims, including Annie Farmer, who accused Maxwell of grooming and abuse. Based on the testimony and risk of flight, Judge Nathan ordered Maxwell to be detained.
DOJ-OGR-00001276.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 22, 2021, discusses the legal standard for a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The central issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the motion while the defendant's separate bail appeal is pending, with the document citing case law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to outline the court's authority in such a situation.
DOJ-OGR-00001241.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated February 23, 2021, submitted by the legal team of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys argue that proposed restrictive bail conditions, including renunciation of foreign citizenship and asset monitoring, are sufficient to ensure her appearance at trial. They conclude that denying bail under these circumstances would constitute a miscarriage of justice.
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-00000925.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law dated April 1, 2021, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents like United States v. Horton and United States v. Shakur. It then begins an argument that Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i) because the 'horrific conditions' of her 'de facto solitary confinement' prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000919.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell is a direct consequence of Jeffrey Epstein's death and the resulting media frenzy, positioning her as a 'scapegoat'. The author contends that the case against her is weak, citing the lack of charges against her in 2019 alongside Epstein or in his 2008 Florida case. The document also notes that the government recently superseded the indictment to add a new anonymous accuser.
DOJ-OGR-00000914.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for her innocence. It claims the government's evidence is weak and consists of old, untested hearsay, and that the prosecution is motivated by the 'Epstein Effect'—a need for a scapegoat following the public outrage over Jeffrey Epstein's death in custody. The filing asserts that this effect has biased prosecutors, the Bureau of Prisons, and the public against her.
DOJ-OGR-00000866.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from September 22, 2021, detailing the procedural history of a defendant's third motion for release on bail. It outlines the dates of the defendant's motion, the government's opposition, and the defendant's reply. The document then discusses the legal standard regarding the court's jurisdiction to rule on the bail motion while the defendant's bail appeal is pending in a higher court.
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the Government in the criminal case against Mr. Epstein, filed on July 18, 2019. It argues that the standard rules of evidence do not apply to bail hearings and that for the specific charges involving sexual victimization of a minor, there is a legal presumption in favor of pretrial detention. The document states that while Mr. Epstein can rebut this presumption, the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he is a danger.
DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg
This document is the final page (page 26) of an appellate court decision dated September 17, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court lists five key holdings, rejecting Maxwell's arguments regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, the statute of limitations, a motion for a new trial, jury instructions, and sentencing reasonableness. The document concludes by explicitly affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00000026.jpg
This legal document, page 25 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, is part of a ruling that upholds a lower court's decision. The court concludes that the District Court did not make an error in applying a 'leadership enhancement' to Maxwell's sentence or in its justification for the sentence's length. The ruling quotes the District Court's findings regarding Maxwell's 'pivotal role' in facilitating abuse and the gravity of her offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the sentencing of an individual named Maxwell. It affirms the District Court's application of a 'four-level leadership enhancement' based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, and other testimony corroborated Maxwell's high-level role as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claims of trial prejudice and unreasonable sentencing. It asserts that evidence of her criminal conduct in New Mexico was properly included and did not cause 'substantial prejudice,' as her defense received related interview notes from a victim named Jane well before trial. The document also defends Maxwell's 240-month sentence as procedurally reasonable, countering her argument that the District Court erred in its application of sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00000022.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' regarding the indictment, specifically analyzing 'Jane's testimony' and a 'jury note' related to Count Four. The appellate court agrees with the District Court's handling of the jury instructions and determines that the core of criminality was properly maintained.
DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
This document is page 20 of an appellate court opinion (likely 2nd Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' violating the Fifth Amendment because it differed from the indictment charges. The court rejected this argument and affirmed the lower court's ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00000020.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the District Court's response to a specific note from the jury during deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent for sexual activity was present. The document states the court found the question too difficult to "parse factually and legally" and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions, an action which is being analyzed in this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It discusses a Rule 33 motion regarding Juror 50's erroneous responses during voir dire in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text argues that under the 'McDonough' standard, a new trial is not warranted because the District Court found the juror's errors were not deliberate and would not have resulted in a strike for cause.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity