Burton
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Johnson
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
JOHNSON
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Burton v. Johnson was decided, holding in a murder case. | 10th Cir. | View |
| 1991-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Burton v. Johnson, a murder case. | 10th Cir. | View |
| 1991-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case cited: Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991). | N/A | View |
EFTA00032555.pdf
A Department of Justice control sheet tracking correspondence from Arlan Ettinger, President of Guernsey's Auction House, dated August 13, 2019. Ettinger proposed that his firm handle the disposal of Jeffrey Epstein's estate to maximize financial return and support young women. The document reveals internal DOJ difficulties in assigning the task, as the Criminal Division (CRM), Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and EOUSA initially refused the assignment before it was directed to EOUSA-SDNY by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) claim that one of the jurors, Juror 50, was biased. The defendant cites other legal cases (Afshar, Burton) to support the claim, but the court distinguishes the facts and finds Juror 50 was not biased, noting his credible testimony about his past abuse. The court also dismisses the argument that Juror 50's post-trial interviews and social media activity are evidence of bias.
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-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009038.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from February 24, 2022, defines and analyzes the concept of "implied bias" as a basis for challenging potential jurors. It cites numerous legal precedents to explain that implied bias is presumed by law, regardless of a juror's stated impartiality, especially when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated. The document provides examples from past cases, such as jurors who were victims of crimes similar to those in the case they were hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009005.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010311.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 was incapable of being impartial due to his own past trauma of childhood sexual abuse, which was highly similar to that of the victims in the case. The filing cites multiple legal precedents where jurors were dismissed or new trials were granted for failing to disclose such biasing personal experiences. The document further contends that Juror 50's decision to speak to the international press after the trial to 'tell his story' demonstrates his deep identification with the victims and confirms his bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009729.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that defines and discusses the concept of "implied bias" in the context of jury selection. It cites several legal precedents (Torres, Haynes, Sampson, etc.) to explain that implied bias is presumed by law and is determined by the juror's circumstances, not their stated ability to be impartial. The text highlights that bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated, providing examples from cases involving murder and burglary.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016486.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page ii) from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion. It lists various legal precedents (case law) primarily focused on media, public access to court records, and sealing orders (e.g., NY Times v. US, Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court). Crucially, it cites 'People v. Epstein' (2011) as a key authority used 'passim' (throughout) the main document, suggesting the filing relates to the legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein, possibly regarding the unsealing of records. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity