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-00021174.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page from a legal filing (Appellate Case 22-1426, Document 77) dated June 29, 2023. It indexes four items included in the appendix: an OPR Report from November 2020, a District Court Opinion & Order from February 2022, a Sentencing Transcript from June 2022, and an exhibit labeled GX-422. The footer indicates this document is part of a Department of Justice production (DOJ-OGR).
DOJ-OGR-00021168.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the U.S. Government on April 26, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The Government requests a 30-day extension to file its response brief to a party named Maxwell, citing the need to prepare for an upcoming trial in a separate case (United States v. Wynder & Brown) starting May 22, 2023. The document notes that Maxwell's counsel, Diana Samson, does not oppose the extension, provided Maxwell also receives an extension to file her reply brief.
DOJ-OGR-00021167.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing dated April 26, 2023, regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The government attorney outlines the complexity of Maxwell's appeal—which raises issues including Epstein's nonprosecution agreement and juror misconduct—and requests a 30-day extension and a word count allowance (over 20,000 words) to adequately respond, citing a scheduling conflict with another trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
This document is a page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues 'Procedural Errors' regarding the sentencing of a defendant (identified by the sentencing date of June 28, 2022, as likely Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically claiming the District Court miscalculated sentencing guidelines and adhered to a pre-determined 240-month sentence despite errors in the calculation range. It references the Presentence Report (PSR) and the 'SH' (Sentencing Hearing).
DOJ-OGR-00021144.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, specifically Point V, arguing that a defendant's sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. The core assertion is that the District Court made significant procedural errors by miscalculating the sentencing guidelines, imposing an upward variance without justification, and improperly applying an aggravating role adjustment. The argument is supported by legal precedent establishing the standard of review for sentences.
DOJ-OGR-00021133.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erred regarding 'Juror 50,' claiming the juror was biased and concealed information during voir dire to act as an 'unsworn expert' on traumatic memory. It cites Rule 606(b) exceptions and references a footnote contrasting expert testimony by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (stating memory is constructed) with Juror 50's statements to The Independent (Jan 4, 2022) that abuse memories are 'replayed like a video.'
DOJ-OGR-00021130.jpg
This legal document, part of case 22-1426, argues that the District Court abused its discretion during a post-trial hearing. The filing contends that the court improperly prevented the defense from cross-examining Juror 50, who, it is argued, would have been dismissed from the jury had he truthfully disclosed the nature of his past abuse during jury selection. The document contrasts the severe abuse suffered by Juror 50 with lesser forms of sexual assault reported by other potential jurors who were not dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00021123.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, referencing several court cases and judicial opinions. It highlights a shift in interpretation, particularly noting Judge Cabranes's view in Enterprise that such statutes may have impermissible retroactive effects. The document also points out a tension between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits' reasoning and the Third Circuit's stance on the retroactivity of §3283.
DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court's application of statute § 3283 is improper because it creates "impermissible retroactive effects" without explicit authorization from Congress. The author cites several legal precedents, including Landgraf and U.S. v. Richardson, to support the established legal principle against the retroactive application of statutes, particularly criminal statutes of limitations. The document contends that because clear congressional intent for retroactivity is absent, the District Court's decision must be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00021118.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues against the District Court's reliance on a floor statement by Senator Leahy regarding the PROTECT Act and the constitutionality of retroactive prosecution. The text contends that the court improperly applied the standards of 'Stogner v. California' (2003) to analyze Leahy's remarks, noting that Stogner was decided after the PROTECT Act was passed.
DOJ-OGR-00021114.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on Feb 28, 2023. It argues primarily against the retroactive application of the PROTECT Act (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse). The text cites legal precedents (Diehl, Coutentos) to argue that the District Court erred in its interpretation of the statute's retroactivity concerning the April 2003 amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00021112.jpg
This document is page 65 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. The text presents a legal argument regarding statutory interpretation, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or a 'case-specific approach' should apply to 8 U.S.C. § 3283. The brief argues that the District Court erred by using a case-specific approach, citing conflicts with Supreme Court precedents such as *Nijhawan v. Holder*, *James v. U.S.*, and *Kawashima*.
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
This page from a legal brief (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erroneously relied on the non-controlling case *Weingarten v. U.S.* regarding the statute of limitations (specifically § 3283 vs § 3282) and Mann Act violations. The text analyzes the legislative history of the 2003 amendment to argue that the statute was intended for cases involving the actual abduction and rape of a child, distinguishing it from crimes that do not categorically involve minor abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
This legal document argues that a District Court's interpretation of statute § 3283 is flawed because it relies on misinterpreted legal precedent. The author contends the court, following a Third Circuit opinion, improperly applied a quote from the *Dodge* case, which concerned a different statute (SORNA), to invent a legislative history for § 3283 that does not exist.
DOJ-OGR-00019643.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 36 of 37) of a legal filing submitted on October 2, 2020, by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The filing argues that the District Court's order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order should be affirmed. It is signed by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Pomerantz, Comey, Moe, and Metzner.
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court filing, argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion by Maxwell to modify a protective order. The filing contends that the appellate court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead affirm the lower court's decision, as the case does not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such intervention.
DOJ-OGR-00019632.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, presents the Government's argument against an appeal by Maxwell. The Government contends that Maxwell has failed to show sufficient harm from Judge Nathan's Order to warrant an appeal and that pursuing the appeal is an inefficient use of resources while a criminal case is pending in the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00019630.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against an immediate appeal by a party named Maxwell regarding the use of criminal discovery materials. It contends that Maxwell has not met the legal standard for such a review, citing precedents like Flanagan, Martoma, and Guerrero. The document asserts that Maxwell's concerns about privacy and publicity can be adequately addressed during a standard appeal after a final judgment is rendered in her criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019617.jpg
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, details a dispute in a criminal case concerning a Protective Order. The defendant, Maxwell, sought to modify the order on August 17, 2020, to use discovery materials from her criminal case in separate civil proceedings, despite having previously agreed not to. The Government filed an opposition to this motion on August 21, 2020, citing the original terms of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00019609.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020 (Document 82 in Case 20-3061). It outlines arguments asserting that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The document references Judge Nathan and details the structure of the argument spanning 30 pages.
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
DOJ-OGR-00019587.jpg
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, is a filing in which Ms. Maxwell requests permission from the court to be excused from publicly filing a redacted version of 'Appendix Volume 2'. The justification is that the appendix and related briefs contain confidential information shielded by a criminal protective order. The filing connects this request to two ongoing appeals she has filed: one against an order by Judge Nathan and another against an order by Judge Preska in the related case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, with a consolidated oral argument scheduled for October 13.
DOJ-OGR-00019516.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 32) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues against the defendant's request to publicly name individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Epstein or the defendant, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedents (Paris, Corley, Kelly) regarding privacy and safety. The Government advocates for a protective order that requires the use of pseudonyms (e.g., 'Victim-1') in public filings while allowing the defense to use names in sealed filings and internal investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019493.jpg
This page from a legal filing dated July 21, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that government officials (Ms. Strauss and FBI Agent William Sweeney) and private attorneys (David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, and Bradley Edwards) made prohibited, prejudicial public statements regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The document cites specific quotes comparing Maxwell to a 'snake' and 'villain,' as well as speculation about her potential cooperation with prosecutors to implicate other 'wealthy and influential people.' The filing asserts these comments violate Local Rule 23.1.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity