district court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 | Legal proceeding | The District Court failed to hold a hearing on the scope of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The District Court applied Annabi's rule of construction without holding a hearing. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A legal trial where evidence was presented, a summation was given by the Government, and jury ins... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire process during which Juror 50 was questioned. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Post-trial hearing where the court examined Juror 50. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court following a special evidentiary... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | The District Court's sentencing of Maxwell, which is being reviewed and upheld in this document. ... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The holding that the District Court did not err in applying a leadership enhancement or in explai... | 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 sent a note regarding clarification on Count Four of the Indictment. | Courtroom | 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 sentenced to 240 months imprisonment (above guidelines range of 188-235 months). | Court | View |
| N/A | Post-trial hearing | A hearing conducted by the District Court where it allegedly abused its discretion by limiting th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appealed the District Court's denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denies Maxwell's motion for a new trial. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | A court holds that the District Court did not err in applying a leadership enhancement or in expl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court finding that USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). | Unknown | View |
| 2023-01-16 | N/A | Post-verdict hearing | Court | View |
| 2022-10-20 | Legal proceeding | An appellate court filed this document affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction agai... | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | The District Court issued a judgment of conviction against Maxwell, which is being affirmed by th... | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | District Court judgment of conviction (Sentencing). | SDNY | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | District Court judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal judgment | The District Court's judgment of conviction for Maxwell was issued. | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Judgment of conviction entered by the District Court. | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | The District Court issued a judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
This legal document describes the aftermath of a 2017 defamation case settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell, noting Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to have confidential information returned by the law firm Boies Schiller. It then alleges that in August 2020, Maxwell discovered the government had improperly obtained a file related to the case through an ex parte proceeding, violating a Protective Order that required notice to all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00002357(2).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses a July 2016 deposition of Maxwell. It states that a superseding indictment alleges Maxwell committed perjury during this deposition by providing false testimony about her knowledge of sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house. The document notes that a district court had previously compelled her testimony over privacy objections, believing a protective order was sufficient.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
This document, a legal filing from February 2021, discusses the handling of confidential material under a Protective Order and details events surrounding Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions. It notes Maxwell's agreement to testify without invoking self-incrimination privilege and Giuffre's subsequent motion to compel further answers. A footnote also highlights concerns about the misuse and leaking of confidential information by the plaintiff and her lawyers to the media, other claimants, and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002322.jpg
This document is page 'i' (the Table of Contents) of a legal filing submitted on January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the structure of the document, which includes a Preliminary Statement, a Statement of Facts covering procedural history and the District's Jury Plan, and an Argument section.
DOJ-OGR-00002316.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 124) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated January 25, 2021. The defense argues that the indictment is unconstitutionally vague because it uses interchangeable terms for victims (e.g., 'Minor Victim-1' vs 'girls') and fails to provide specific dates or locations for alleged crimes occurring 27 years prior. The text lists specific vague allegations such as 'befriend,' 'groomed,' and 'took Minor Victim -2 to a movie' to illustrate the difficulty in preparing a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002292(1).jpg
This legal filing (Page 14 of a defense motion) argues against joining 'Perjury Counts' with 'Mann Act Counts' in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense asserts that joining the charges would cause prejudice by introducing uncharged allegations from 1999-2002 involving Virginia Giuffre. The document emphasizes that a previous Palm Beach Police investigation interviewed over 30 victims who did not implicate Maxwell, and notes that the 2019 indictment charged Epstein alone.
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00001826.jpg
This document discusses a legal appeal by 'Maxwell' concerning the denial of her motion to modify a protective order and her request for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. The court declines to exercise jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal, also denying her request for a writ of mandamus and her motions to consolidate her criminal appeal with a civil appeal involving Guiffre v. Maxwell, citing lack of common identity between the appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00021903.jpg
This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021901.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the legal standards for reviewing a court sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. It specifically addresses a finding by the District Court that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, which was based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. This testimony was deemed credible and corroborated by other testimony describing Maxwell as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00021900.jpg
This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.
DOJ-OGR-00021898.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses whether a constructive amendment to an indictment occurred during a trial. The court concludes that neither the Government's evidence, including Jane's testimony, nor an ambiguous jury note constituted such an amendment. The court agrees with the lower District Court, finding that its jury instructions properly captured the "core of criminality" of the charged offense.
DOJ-OGR-00021897.jpg
This document is page 20 of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426, filed 12/02/2024) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is affirming the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion claiming a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' to her indictment, specifically regarding testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico. The text cites legal precedents involving the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and standards for indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021896.jpg
This document appears to be page 19 of an appellate filing (dated Dec 2, 2024) upholding the District Court's decisions in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It addresses the court's refusal to grant a new trial based on juror misconduct (specifically regarding Juror 50) and defends the court's response to a jury note concerning Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00021895.jpg
This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021891.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal ruling filed on December 2, 2024 (Case 22-1426), likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirms the District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of her indictment. The court rules that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and that the 2003 amendment to this statute was correctly applied retroactively.
DOJ-OGR-00021885.jpg
This legal document details the post-trial proceedings for a defendant named Maxwell. After the Government requested a hearing regarding a juror's inaccurate questionnaire answers, Maxwell moved for a new trial. The District Court held a hearing where Juror 50 testified his inaccurate answers about past experiences with sexual abuse were an inadvertent mistake; the court found him credible, denied Maxwell's motion, and subsequently sentenced her to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00021882.jpg
This document is page 5 of an appellate court decision (filed Dec 2, 2024) affirming Ghislaine Maxwell's 2022 conviction. The text outlines the background of the case, stating that Maxwell groomed underage girls for Epstein starting in 1994 and discusses Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors in Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021873.jpg
This document is a legal opinion from an appellate court, filed on October 20, 2022, which summarizes its reasons for affirming a lower District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell. The court found no error in the lower court's rulings, including that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution and that her conviction and sentence were sound.
DOJ-OGR-00021872.jpg
This page from a legal document, likely an appellate court opinion, affirms a lower court's decision. It concludes that the District Court did not make a legal error by applying a 'leadership enhancement' in a case involving someone named Kellen. It also upholds the sentence given to Ms. Maxwell, stating the District Court properly justified the sentence's length by citing her 'pivotal role' in abusing underage girls and the gravity of her offense.
DOJ-OGR-00021871.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for reviewing a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. It specifically addresses a sentencing enhancement for Maxwell, arguing that the District Court correctly found she had a leadership role based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Sarah Kellen was Maxwell's assistant, which was corroborated by other testimony describing Maxwell as Epstein's "number two and the lady of the house" in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00021870.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable. It details that Maxwell transported a victim named 'Jane' to New York for sexual abuse and that abuse also occurred at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. The document confirms Maxwell's sentence of 240 months imprisonment, which was slightly above the calculated guideline range of 188-235 months.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity