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 | Legal proceeding | The District Court applied the McDonough standard, found Juror 50’s testimony credible, and deter... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A discussion of the legal standard (the McDonough standard) for granting a new trial based on a j... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing on potential juror misconduct involving Juror 50, mentioned in a footnote. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court denied Maxwell's Motion to Modify the Protective Order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of the legal doctrine of 'inferred bias' in the context of jury selection and dismissa... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | In the cited case of Torres, the district court struck a juror for cause because she had engaged ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where the Government presented evidence and a summation, and the jury was given ... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal finding | The District Court found that Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, partly based on pilot testimony. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The District Court denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial in a written order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss an indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal finding | The District Court found that Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, applying a four-level leadership e... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court found that Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, leading to a four-level leadership... | N/A | 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 | Legal proceeding / sentencing | The District Court imposed a sentence on a Defendant that is being challenged on the grounds of m... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The District Court denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | Maxwell appeals the District Court's denial of her motion, arguing a constructive amendment to he... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's sentencing, where the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell moved to dismiss the charges against her, which the District Court denied. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial in a written order. | District Court | View |
| 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 | N/A | Sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell to 240 months imprisonment. | District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021868.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses whether a constructive amendment to an indictment occurred. The court concludes that evidence presented by the Government, including a witness named Jane's testimony, and a subsequent jury note did not constitute a constructive amendment. The document affirms the District Court's jury instructions regarding Count Four of the Indictment, finding they correctly captured the 'core of criminality' and were not in error.
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
This page is from a legal opinion (likely the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, given the citations) 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' from the original indictment, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court reviews the denial *de novo* and rejects Maxwell's argument.
DOJ-OGR-00021866.jpg
This legal document details the District Court's handling of a jury note during the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in the victim Jane's return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too difficult to 'parse factually and legally,' and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions for that count.
DOJ-OGR-00021865.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discusses a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' alleged erroneous responses during jury selection (voir dire). The text argues that the District Court correctly applied the 'McDonough' standard, finding the juror's errors were not deliberate and that accurate answers would not have led to a dismissal for cause. It also notes that Ghislaine Maxwell did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed histories of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
This document is page 17 (labeled page 40 of 56 in the header) of a legal brief, likely from the government (DOJ), arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It specifically addresses the District Court's denial of a new trial regarding 'Juror 50', who Maxwell alleges failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text cites legal precedents supporting the court's discretion to deny probing jurors post-verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court given the 'we review de novo' language) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations. The text analyzes 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors and cites case law such as Weingarten v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00021856.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court affirms a lower District Court's decision, ruling that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The court holds that such agreements are generally limited to the specific district in which they are made.
DOJ-OGR-00021851.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in New York, affirms that the indictment complied with the statute of limitations, and denies that a juror's erroneous answers during voir dire warranted a new trial. The document notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000.
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024. It analyzes the legal precedent of *Annabi* (771 F.2d 671), focusing on whether a plea agreement made with the US Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) prevents prosecution by the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text highlights the Second Circuit's ruling that despite being counterintuitive, an agreement to dismiss counts by one district's prosecutor did not bind the United States from prosecuting in another district. This legal argument is likely being cited in the broader context of the Epstein case to discuss the validity and scope of Non-Prosecution Agreements across different federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It details her argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) should have barred her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text also references a 2019 DOJ OPR investigation into the original handling of the Epstein case by SDFL prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021833.jpg
This legal document page outlines the timeline of legal actions involving Epstein and Maxwell following Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, followed by Maxwell's indictment and a subsequent superseding indictment by the SDNY in 2021. The core of the text describes Maxwell's unsuccessful motion to dismiss her indictment by leveraging the language of Epstein's NPA, a motion which the District Court denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021820.jpg
This document is a legal ruling from an appellate court, dated September 17, 2024, which affirms the conviction of Maxwell. The court rejects several grounds for appeal, including that Epstein's prior non-prosecution agreement should have barred her prosecution and that her indictment was outside the statute of limitations. The ruling upholds the District Court's judgment of conviction from June 29, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00021819.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal ruling (Case 22-1426) filed on September 17, 2024. The appellate court affirms the District Court's sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, upholding the application of a 'leadership enhancement' and the length of the sentence due to the gravity of her role in facilitating the abuse of underage girls. The page concludes the discussion on sentencing and begins the final conclusion of the document.
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion (likely the appeal decision in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' of an indictment, ruling that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' and a subsequent jury note did not improperly amend the charges against the defendant. The appellate court affirms the District Court's handling of jury instructions regarding the 'core of criminality' and 'Count Four' of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) dated September 17, 2024. It details Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' of her indictment, specifically concerning testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00021813.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It discusses the District Court's refusal to grant a new trial and specifically addresses a jury note sent during deliberations regarding Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. Footnotes address a hearing regarding Juror 50's potential misconduct and citations to the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021803.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court addresses Maxwell's argument that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejects this claim, holding that the NPA made by the Florida office does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY), which brought the charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021802.jpg
This legal document details post-trial proceedings in the case of an individual named Maxwell. Following the discovery of interviews, the Government requested a hearing regarding Juror 50, who admitted to providing inaccurate answers on a jury questionnaire but claimed it was an inadvertent mistake. The District Court found the juror's testimony credible, denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, and subsequently sentenced Maxwell to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00021799.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. It provides background information, stating that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell coordinated and facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls in the United States. The document also references Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021776.jpg
This document is the concluding page of a legal brief, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. The brief requests that the matter be remanded to the District Court for a new trial, a hearing, or resentencing. It is respectfully submitted by her legal team from the law firm AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, PC.
DOJ-OGR-00021775.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal for Ms. Maxwell, argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove she supervised Sarah Kellen in any criminal capacity. It cites testimony from witnesses Kimberly Espinoza and Carolyn, who state that Kellen's employment with Epstein began after Maxwell and Epstein had already separated. The document concludes by requesting that Ms. Maxwell's convictions be reversed or the case be remanded to the District Court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity