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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-29 | Legal proceeding | The court dismissed the Epstein indictment. | District court | View |
| 2019-08-27 | N/A | District court hearing where over a dozen victims spoke. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-08-27 | N/A | District court hearing where Epstein's victims spoke. | New York | View |
| 2019-06-26 | Legal proceeding | The District Court refused to vacate its decision and threatened the Intervenor with sanctions if... | District Ct. | View |
| 2019-02-21 | Court ruling | The district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, finding that the USAO violated the C... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District court issued opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government. | Florida | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District court issued opinion in CVRA case regarding misleading letters. | Federal Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District Court issues opinion finding U.S. violated the CVRA | District Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | Legal opinion issued | District court issued an opinion concluding that the government violated the CVRA by failing to c... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-21 | Court ruling | A district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, finding that the USAO violated the CVR... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-01 | N/A | District court found government violated CVRA by failing to advise victims about the NPA. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal opinion | District court's opinion in the CVRA litigation | N/A | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Does v. United States (Epstein Case) court decision | S.D. Fla. | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | District court conclusion in the Epstein case (Does v. United States) regarding CVRA application. | S.D. Fla. | View |
| 2005-02-07 | N/A | Ruling in United States v. Bin Laden | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1987-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in 'In re U.S.', reversing a District Court's order ... | N/A | View |
030.pdf
This document contains a letter from Troutman Sanders LLP to Judge Debra C. Freeman updating the court on the establishment of the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. It attaches a Status Report filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands and the detailed Protocol for the Independent Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, which outlines eligibility, claims administration, evaluation methodology, and compensation procedures for sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
EFTA00028641.pdf
This is a Proffer Agreement for a meeting held on July 12, 2019, between an unnamed female client (represented by attorney Joseph Nascimento) and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The agreement stipulates that information provided by the client generally cannot be used against her in a direct case-in-chief but can be used for leads or impeachment. The document includes handwritten dates indicating the meeting continued on September 10, 2019, and May 14, 2021.
EFTA00023011.pdf
This document is a formal order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 27, 2021. It affirms previous District Court orders from December 2020 and March 2021 that denied Ghislaine Maxwell's requests for bail pending trial. The court also addresses a complaint made during oral arguments regarding Maxwell's sleep deprivation while incarcerated, directing her counsel to address those specific concerns to the District Court.
EFTA00014125.pdf
This document is a letter dated August 1, 2008, from attorney Brad Edwards to an Assistant US Attorney regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards argues for the inclusion of specific facts in a court notice, specifically that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) barring federal charges was negotiated in secret in 2007 and withheld from victims due to a confidentiality clause until after Epstein's state plea in June 2008. Edwards also demands a full copy of the NPA, FBI interview reports of his clients, and a hearing transcript.
EFTA00008511.pdf
A photograph documenting physical evidence seized, likely in connection with the 2019 case against Jeffrey Epstein (indicated by case number 19MAG 6571). The items include a stack of manila and purple file folders, a black binder, a red 'universal' notebook, and a collection of CDs/DVDs. The discs bear handwritten labels such as 'Hawaii', 'Black Binders', 'disk damage', and various alphanumeric codes.
DOJ-OGR-00000086.tif
This document is a legal conclusion affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction for Ms. Maxwell on June 29, 2022. It details five key holdings, including that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with USAO-SDFL did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution by USAOSDNY, and that the District Court's sentence for Maxwell was procedurally reasonable. The document emphasizes the gravity of Maxwell's offense and the significant harm she inflicted.
DOJ-OGR-00000085.tif
This document excerpt discusses a District Court's findings regarding the sentencing of Maxwell, specifically focusing on the application of sentencing guidelines and a leadership enhancement. The court found Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who was Epstein's 'number two' and 'lady of the house' in Palm Beach, where significant abuse occurred, and noted Maxwell's pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of underaged girls.
DOJ-OGR-00000081.tif
This document details an appeal by Maxwell challenging a District Court's denial related to a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance in an indictment. Maxwell argues that testimony regarding a witness's sexual abuse in New Mexico created a new basis for conviction distinct from the original indictment, and that jury instructions regarding the transportation of 'Jane' for sexual activity constituted a constructive amendment. The document affirms the District Court's denial, citing legal precedents for interpreting the Grand Jury Clause and constructive amendment claims.
DOJ-OGR-00000080.tif
This document outlines legal arguments concerning Maxwell's trial, specifically addressing the District Court's handling of juror selection and a jury note related to Count Four of the Indictment. It discusses whether Maxwell could be found guilty for aiding in Jane's transportation if the intent for sexual activity was not tied to the New Mexico flight, and references a case (United States v. Ianniello) regarding juror questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
This document discusses legal arguments related to the application of statutes of limitations for sexual abuse charges under the PROTECT Act, specifically as it pertains to Maxwell's conduct. It also details Maxwell's appeal for a new trial, arguing that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection deprived her of a fair trial, a motion which the District Court denied. The document cites several legal precedents regarding the definition and application of 'abuse of discretion' in judicial review.
DOJ-OGR-00000076.tif
This legal document discusses the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges related to the sexual abuse of minors, focusing on the application of § 3283. It references the Weingarten v. United States case, which established a 'case-specific approach' for interpreting statutory provisions, and notes that one of the victims is identified as 'Jane'. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Sampson, Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Maxwell, and Taylor v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00000075.tif
This document discusses legal arguments concerning the timeliness of an indictment against Maxwell and the scope of U.S. Attorney's powers. It states that the District Court denied Maxwell's motion, finding that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her. Maxwell also argues that certain counts are untimely and that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations (§ 3283) should not apply to her case.
DOJ-OGR-00000069.tif
This document details the conclusion of a jury trial for Maxwell, who was found guilty on December 29, 2021, of multiple counts including sex trafficking and transportation of a minor for sexual activity, but acquitted on one count. It also highlights a critical issue with Juror 50, who, despite stating in post-verdict interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, had previously answered 'no' to relevant questions on the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00000067.tif
This document is a legal ruling affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell. It states that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with the statute of limitations, and her sentence was procedurally reasonable. The background details Maxwell's role in coordinating and facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls from 1994 until approximately 2004 across various U.S. locations.
DOJ-OGR-00015090.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against the unsealing of grand jury materials. The defense argues that because the grand jury convened only five years prior and Ghislaine Maxwell is still actively litigating her case (including a pending Supreme Court petition), releasing the materials would cause irrevocable reputational harm and taint the legal process. The filing explicitly notes that while Epstein is dead, Maxwell is alive, distinguishing this case from others where secrecy is no longer needed due to the death of principal parties.
DOJ-OGR-00014876.jpg
This document is the final page (26) of a United States Court of Appeals ruling filed on January 23, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific arguments on appeal, including the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in Florida prevented her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal opinion (likely from a Court of Appeals) affirming the sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court upholds the District Court's application of a 'leadership enhancement' to her sentence and validates the court's reasoning regarding the gravity of her conduct and her pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of underage girls. It references specific sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and mentions an individual named Kellen in the context of where the abuse occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00014871.jpg
This page from a legal document, likely a court opinion, discusses and rejects a defendant's claim of a 'constructive amendment' to their indictment. The court finds that the evidence presented by the Government, including a witness named Jane's testimony, and the jury instructions from the District Court, stayed within the 'core of criminality' of the charged offense. The court also affirms the District Court's handling of an ambiguous jury note, concluding it did not lead to an improper conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial opinion concerning an appeal by a defendant named Maxwell. The court is reviewing the District Court's decision to deny Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The basis for Maxwell's motion was that 'Juror 50' failed to accurately answer questions on a jury questionnaire about a personal history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell argues deprived her of a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. Maxwell argued 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 rejected her argument, holding that the NPA made with the USAO-SDFL does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting her.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity