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-00021766.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the District Court abused its discretion in the case against Maxwell. The argument focuses on the court's handling of Juror 50, whose failure to provide truthful answers during voir dire and whose personal life experiences mirrored trial testimony, should have been grounds for a challenge for cause due to unexplored potential bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021760.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on July 27, 2023, arguing for the enforcement of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The text contends that because the Government drafted the NPA with unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities should be resolved against the Government, and that Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the agreement before his death. It specifically mentions the 'co-conspirator clause' being understood as global and argues the Government cannot retroactively restrict the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021759.jpg
This legal filing argues that the District Court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Ms. Maxwell. The author contends the court ignored key evidence from the OPR and improperly applied a rule of construction, ultimately failing to resolve ambiguities in the agreement in favor of Ms. Maxwell as required by law. The document cites precedent from the Second Circuit to support the necessity of such a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021754.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should be considered a third-party beneficiary of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text cites legal precedents regarding plea agreements and asserts that the NPA's immunity for 'potential co-conspirators' extends to Maxwell for offenses between 2001 and 2007. A footnote highlights that Florida investigators interviewed victims Carolyn, Virginia Roberts, and Annie Farmer, establishing an overlap between the Florida investigation and the SDNY trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
This legal document from July 27, 2023, argues that Ms. Maxwell has legal standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites precedent from the Second and Seventh Circuits to support the claim that the immunity granted in the NPA should prevent the United States from prosecuting her in the Southern District of New York. The document asserts that the District Court has already correctly found in Maxwell's favor on this point.
DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
This document is a legal brief from a court case, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her sentence was erroneous due to a miscalculation and an unsupported four-point enhancement. The brief also contends that Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement that should have barred the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and requests that her conviction be reversed or the case be remanded.
DOJ-OGR-00021749.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement in reply for an appeal by Ms. Maxwell. She argues that her prosecution was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and that the District Court erred in its handling of ambiguities related to it. Additionally, she contends the court abused its discretion regarding Juror 50, citing the juror's false answers on a questionnaire and concealed past trauma as grounds for a valid challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
This document is a page from the Table of Contents (page ii) of a legal appeal filed on July 27, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding procedural errors by the District Court, specifically concerning the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding bias and the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The page specifically references Case 22-1426.
DOJ-OGR-00021731.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal appellate brief filed on June 29, 2023, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance in the trial, asserting that the jury did not convict Maxwell solely based on the transport of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico, but rather on intentions to violate New York law. It cites various legal precedents regarding 'variance' and 'constructive amendment' in indictments.
DOJ-OGR-00021727.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details the Government's arguments during the trial of Maxwell, focusing on the legal requirement that the criminal conduct was directed at New York. The prosecution argued that transporting victims like Jane to New York and intending for abuse to occur there was sufficient for conviction, even if the abuse itself happened elsewhere. The document also mentions the District Court's jury instructions, which focused on Maxwell's intent for sexual activity to take place in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021723.jpg
This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021713.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) detailing the procedural history of a hearing concerning 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes how Judge Nathan ordered a hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to answer jury selection questions truthfully regarding past sexual abuse. The document notes that on March 8, 2022, Juror 50 testified under immunity and admitted that his answers to specific questions (25 and 48) were inaccurate.
DOJ-OGR-00021709.jpg
This page from a 2023 appellate filing (likely by the government) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four properly qualify as offenses involving sexual abuse of a child, citing testimony from a victim named 'Jane.' It also begins a section defending the District Court's decision regarding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00021693.jpg
This legal document argues that a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, which extended a statute of limitations, was properly applied to Maxwell's case under the 'Landgraf' legal framework. It contends that since the original limitations period had not expired when Congress passed the amendment, the charges against Maxwell are timely. The document also cites evidence from a separate case (United States v. Rutigliano) showing that an individual named Carolyn visited Epstein's residence through 2004, establishing a relevant timeline.
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the legal standard for retroactivity as established in the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products. It then introduces an argument from a claimant named Maxwell, who alleges that the District Court incorrectly applied a 2003 amendment to Section 3283 retroactively to her convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Six, which involved conduct predating the amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
This document is page 27 of a legal filing (dated June 29, 2023) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the District Court (Judge Nathan) correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss without a hearing because the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida were clear and did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. A footnote clarifies that even if the NPA applied, it would only cover specific counts (Count Six) and not others (Counts Three and Four) involving different victims and time periods.
DOJ-OGR-00021675.jpg
This legal document discusses a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein that included a provision protecting potential co-conspirators, though Maxwell was not named or a party to it. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) charged Maxwell. Her attempts to dismiss these charges based on the NPA were denied by the District Court, which concluded the NPA did not bind the USAO-SDNY.
DOJ-OGR-00021663.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines allegations that Maxwell and Epstein conspired to groom and sexually abuse young girls at Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico. It details the evidence presented at trial, which included testimony from victims and employees, flight logs, and other records. The document also specifies that Maxwell and Epstein had a close, intimate relationship starting around 1991, with Maxwell serving as his girlfriend until the early 2000s.
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
DOJ-OGR-00021537.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the prosecution on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues against the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct (specifically regarding 'Juror 50' and a 'second juror' lying during voir dire). The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606 and the Supreme Court case Warger v. Shauers to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences is inadmissible and does not constitute 'extraneous prejudicial information.'
DOJ-OGR-00021463.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.
DOJ-OGR-00021432.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It lists key documents in the case, including an OPR Report from November 2020, a District Court Opinion & Order from February 2022, and a Sentencing Transcript from June 2022, along with their corresponding page numbers in the larger document.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
DOJ-OGR-00021189.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a report, likely from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), concerning the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the report's structure, which covers the factual background, the roles of various federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies (including the DOJ, FBI, and Palm Beach Police), the controversial non-prosecution agreement (NPA), and the timeline of the initial investigation from 2005-2006.
DOJ-OGR-00021188.jpg
This document is Page 16 (xii) of an OPR report outlining the structure of an investigation into DOJ officials' conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of events from the initial 2005 police complaint through the 2006 federal investigation, the controversial 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and Epstein's 2008 guilty plea and subsequent incarceration ending in 2010. The page establishes that the report will analyze allegations of professional misconduct by five unnamed subjects and review government interactions with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity