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-00000018.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of a District Court's decision. The appellant, Maxwell, argues for a new trial on the grounds that Juror 50 was dishonest on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The text outlines the high legal standard of "abuse of discretion" required to overturn the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that new trials are granted only sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000015.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) affirming a District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on timeliness. The court rejects Maxwell's arguments regarding the statute of limitations and the applicability of the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, ruling that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents including Weingarten v. United States and United States v. Sampson.
DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The text references a $750,000 fine imposed on Maxwell and cites legal precedent establishing that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district office where they are entered.
DOJ-OGR-00000009.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing from September 2024, recounting procedural history in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details a March 2022 hearing where 'Juror 50' testified under immunity about inaccurate responses to jury questionnaire items regarding sexual abuse history; the court found the errors inadvertent and denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The text also notes Maxwell's sentencing to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00000006.jpg
This document page is from an appellate court decision affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the background of the case, stating that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell groomed women and girls to facilitate Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. It also briefly mentions Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida, where he agreed to plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution.
DOJ-OGR-00000005.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the issues presented on appeal regarding the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including arguments concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and juror impartiality. The court summarizes its holdings, stating that the NPA did not bind the prosecution in New York, the statute of limitations was not violated, and the motion for a new trial based on juror conduct was properly denied.
DOJ-OGR-00000003.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion dated September 17, 2024, regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction. The document outlines the five legal questions Maxwell raised on appeal, including issues related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, the statute of limitations, and jury conduct. The appellate court found no errors in the District Court's proceedings and affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021108.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) by referencing the 1953 Supreme Court case *Bridges v. U.S.* It details how Bridges was charged for a false statement regarding Communist Party membership in his 1945 naturalization application and how the Supreme Court interpreted the WSLA's scope. The document criticizes a District Court for mischaracterizing the *Bridges* opinion concerning the WSLA's legislative history and the nature of fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00021104.jpg
This legal document, from Case 22-1426 dated February 28, 2023, presents an argument concerning the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283. It traces the legislative history of the statute from the 1994 Crime Bill to the 2003 PROTECT Act, arguing that the lifetime statute of limitations introduced in 2003 cannot be retroactively applied to offenses committed before its enactment. The document also contends that § 3283 does not apply to the specific counts in question because the nature of the offense does not match the statute's requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
This legal document presents an argument that all charges against the Appellant should be dismissed because they are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses. The document contends that the Government's reliance on a specific exception (18 U.S.C. § 3283) for crimes against children is an overreach and warns that a broad interpretation of this statute could have significant negative consequences within the judicial circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00021102.jpg
This legal document argues that all remaining counts in a case must be dismissed because they fall within the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that binds the USAO-SDNY. The author contends the NPA's co-conspirator immunity is not limited to specific timeframes or offenses, citing a provision that allows the U.S. to prosecute Epstein for any federal offense upon a breach of the agreement as evidence of its broad scope. At a minimum, it is argued that Counts Three and Six must be dismissed as they fall within the NPA's scope as construed by the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00021086.jpg
This document is a page from an appellate legal brief (Case 22-1426) arguing that the District Court erred in applying the 'Annabi' legal precedent to the Appellant's case. The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) originated outside the Second Circuit and should not be subject to its specific legal canons, and further argues that the conduct charged in Count Six falls within the time period covered by the original NPA. The document specifically challenges the USAO-SDNY's charges relative to the 2001-2007 offense period.
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
This legal document argues that the 'Annabi' court decision is an outlier and inconsistent with the Circuit's established law regarding the interpretation of plea agreements. The author contends that contrary to the District Court's opinion, the Circuit has been reluctant to rely on Annabi's reasoning, which construes ambiguities against the defendant, and has instead consistently held that such ambiguities should be resolved against the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
DOJ-OGR-00021065.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is part of a court case (22-1426) and questions the legal basis of a sentence imposed by the District Court. The document raises two key issues: whether the sentence was based on a miscalculated guideline range without proper explanation for an upward variance, and whether the court erred in applying an aggravating role adjustment for supervising another criminal participant without sufficient evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg
This document is a 'Statement of the Issues Presented for Review' from an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023). It outlines four main legal arguments for appeal: the misapplication of a non-prosecution agreement, errors regarding statutes of limitations, juror misconduct involving concealed history of sexual abuse, and a constructive amendment of the indictment regarding venue (New Mexico vs. New York) and state law.
DOJ-OGR-00021063.jpg
This document is a 'Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction' filed on February 28, 2023, detailing the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction. It summarizes her June 28, 2022, conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges under Judge Alison Julie Nathan, listing her prison sentence (concurrent terms up to 240 months) and financial penalties ($750,000 total).
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii) from a legal appeal filed on February 28, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding the Statute of Limitations (Point II) and allegations that Juror No. 50 made false statements during voir dire, denying Ms. Maxwell a fair trial (Point III). The document specifically references the Mann Act, Section 3283, and the McDonough Test regarding juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00020975.jpg
This document is page 32 of a 40-page court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standard for 'implied bias' regarding jurors, specifically rejecting the argument that a juror must be presumed biased simply for having personal experiences similar to the issues at trial. The court cites Second Circuit precedents (Daugerdas, Torres, Brown, Garcia) to support the conclusion that implied bias is a narrow category reserved for extreme situations, such as deliberate lying to get on a jury, rather than merely shared experiences.
DOJ-OGR-00020528.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet covering the period from May 25, 2021, to June 15, 2021, detailing legal proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes orders setting trial disclosure schedules (including victim identities and Jencks Act material), a denial of a subpoena motion, and a mandate from the US Court of Appeals affirming the denial of Maxwell's bail and addressing complaints about sleep deprivation in custody. The document also references correspondence between defense attorneys (Everdell, Sternheim) and Judge Nathan regarding pretrial motions and confinement conditions at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020436.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 22-1426) listing entries from late October 2021 regarding the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries detail various orders and letters concerning jury selection, questionnaires, voir dire procedures, and scheduling for motions in limine and jury charges. It documents communications between the defense (Maxwell's counsel) and the prosecution (USA) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00020427.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from May 25, 2021, to June 15, 2021. It details procedural events including the denial of bail appeal by the USCA, scheduling orders for disclosures and motions in limine set by Judge Alison J. Nathan, and correspondence regarding the defendant's confinement conditions. The document logs filings by both the prosecution (USA) and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016129.jpg
This document is page 19 of 106 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains standard jury instructions delivered by the judge, explaining that statements by lawyers, objections, and excluded testimony do not constitute evidence. The judge instructs the jury to rely on their common sense and life experience when evaluating testimony and exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00002540.jpg
This legal document outlines the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a February 21, 2019, court ruling that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) violated victims' rights, the OPR's review examined government conduct, collected extensive records, and conducted over 60 interviews. The investigation identified five subjects, including former U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their roles in the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and related decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
This document is page 18 of a court filing (Document 134) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government/prosecutor engaged in misconduct similar to the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, specifically by misleading the court regarding previous meetings with a firm and encouraging an investigation despite protective orders. The document contains significant redactions regarding the judge's specific comments and rulings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity