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-00019437.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.
DOJ-OGR-00019423.jpg
This document is page 24 (labeled 19 in the brief) of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, related to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share specific information with Judge Preska to properly decide on unsealing deposition materials and a motion to stay, invoking *Martindell* protections and the Fifth Amendment. The text criticizes the government for attempting to keep relevant information secret from a 'co-equal' judge.
DOJ-OGR-00019422.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the Second Circuit appeal regarding Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines Maxwell's argument that the civil appeal court should reverse Judge Preska's order to unseal her depositions. She argues that unsealing the documents now would prejudice her ability to challenge the government's conduct (specifically an alleged violation of 'Martindell' by obtaining civil depositions for criminal use) before Judge Nathan in her pending criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019383.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing from September 2020, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to consolidate a civil appeal with issues related to her criminal case. The text argues that Maxwell is prematurely trying to challenge the Government's evidence-gathering methods (subpoenas) in the appellate court before Judge Nathan has had the opportunity to rule on them in the District Court criminal trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019370.jpg
This document, dated September 16, 2020, details legal proceedings involving Maxwell and the Government. It discusses Maxwell's motion to modify protective orders and the Government's opposition, which revealed a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators. The Government issued subpoenas to a 'Recipient' and applied ex parte in February 2019 to modify protective orders to ensure compliance with these subpoenas, without notifying Maxwell or her counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020. It argues against the immediate appeal of a district court's pretrial decision, asserting that any potential harm to the defendant, Punn, can be adequately remedied through the standard appellate process after a final judgment. The text cites several legal precedents, including Mohawk Indus. and United States v. Hitchcock, to support the principle that post-conviction review is sufficient to protect a defendant's rights, even in cases involving purportedly ill-gotten evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019347.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing dated September 16, 2020, detailing the Government's opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. It outlines the history of grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' in 2019 as part of an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. The text explains that the Government sought to modify civil protective orders ex parte in February 2019 to allow the Recipient to comply with these subpoenas without notifying Maxwell to preserve the investigation's integrity.
DOJ-OGR-00019284.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 20-3061), explains the procedural constraints on Ms. Maxwell due to conflicting court orders. A criminal protective order from Judge Nathan prevents her from sharing critical information with Judge Preska in a related civil case. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell must file a redacted version of her Motion to Consolidate publicly, while the full, unredacted version can only be filed under seal in the criminal appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019270.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing proceedings and filings between July 7 and July 9, 2020. Key entries include notices of attorney appearances for the defense, a motion for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to appear pro hac vice, the filing of a superseding indictment, and a court order scheduling a remote arraignment and bail hearing for July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019156.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The testimony focuses on an invoice regarding a package shipment picked up on October 7, 2002. The defense attorney establishes that the sender listed was Cecilia Steen and explicitly confirms with the witness that Cecilia Steen is not Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00016599.jpg
This document is page 116 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, identified as Loftus (likely Elizabeth Loftus), is testifying during direct examination about the ethical limitations of human experimentation and the role of human subjects review committees. She discusses her work on 'false memories,' describing how she obtains approval to plant false traumatic memories in research participants, such as being attacked by an animal, while noting that more disturbing scenarios (e.g., forced animal sacrifice by a parent) might be rejected by ethics committees.
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
DOJ-OGR-00009150.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the legal standard for 'Inferred Bias' in jurors. It argues that even if 'Juror 50' had disclosed a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, the Court would not have automatically dismissed him for cause without further questioning to establish actual partiality. The text cites precedents like *Torres* and *Greer* to support the trial court's discretion in these matters.
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
DOJ-OGR-00009046.jpg
Page 45 of a legal filing (Document 613) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed in February 2022. The text presents a legal argument regarding 'Inferred Bias' and 'Actual Bias' in jurors, citing the precedent *Torres*. The defense argues that, similar to *Torres*, a juror in the current case (implied to be the Maxwell trial) was subject to conduct closely approximating that of the defendant, creating a risk of unconscious bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009045.jpg
This document is page 44 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'inferable bias' in jury selection, citing precedents such as *United States v. Torres*, *Daugerdas*, and *Greer*. It specifically discusses a scenario where a juror might be dismissed if their past experiences (such as structuring cash transactions) are too similar to the incidents giving rise to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009033.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (Document 613) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses legal precedents regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (referenced via 'Id.' and the mention of 'Juror Payton'). The text outlines the legal standard required to obtain a new trial when a juror fails to answer voir dire questions honestly.
DOJ-OGR-00008979.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 2) of a Motion to Intervene filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) on February 24, 2022, though dated January 10, 2022. Attorney Todd A. Spodek represents an unnamed male Applicant seeking to intervene in the matter. The text references an inquiry into a juror and a deadline for the juror's counsel to file a briefing by January 26, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00019838.jpg
This document appears to be page 10 of a legal brief filed on April 1, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should be granted bail. The text criticizes the District Court for relying on the Government's 'conclusory allegations' regarding the strength of the case to justify detention. The defense argues the case is old, based on anonymous hearsay that has not been confronted, and that prosecutors have refused to disclose the accusers' names or specific allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00019837.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated April 1, 2021) argues that the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell is solely a result of Jeffrey Epstein's death and the subsequent media frenzy, claiming she is being used as a scapegoat. The text highlights that Maxwell was not charged in the 2008 Florida case or the 2019 SDNY case while Epstein was alive, and criticizes the government's lack of evidence during detention hearings regarding her flight risk. A footnote notes that the indictment was superseded on March 29 to include allegations from a fourth anonymous accuser dating back to 2001-2004.
DOJ-OGR-00019832.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, arguing on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text contends that Maxwell is being subjected to cruel punishment despite being innocent, asserting the government's evidence is weak hearsay and that she is being used as a 'scapegoat' due to the public outrage surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death in custody (referred to as the 'Epstein Effect').
DOJ-OGR-00019691.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated November 9, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The court dismisses the appeal filed by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell, finding the arguments to be without merit. The court also denies a motion to consolidate as moot.
DOJ-OGR-00019690.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals order dated November 9, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The court dismisses Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order due to lack of jurisdiction, denies her petition for a writ of mandamus, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*. The court cites various precedents to establish that the protective order does not fall under the 'collateral order exception' and that Maxwell failed to prove exceptional circumstances.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity