Giglio
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal ruling | The Supreme Court ruling in Giglio v. United States, which held that an Assistant United Stated A... | N/A | View |
| 1972-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1972-01-01 | Legal case | Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1972-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Supreme Court ruled in Giglio v. United States, holding that an AUSA had a duty to disclose a... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg
This legal document, dated October 23, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the U.S. Government is improperly withholding critical information. The defense claims the government has not provided details about Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement or meetings held in 2016 to investigate Maxwell. The filing accuses the government of contradicting its earlier court assurances by now disclaiming responsibility for investigative files from Florida that were transferred to the New York F.B.I. office.
DOJ-OGR-00021081.jpg
This legal document excerpt critiques the Second Circuit's interpretation of plea agreements, arguing it misread its own precedent in the 'Papa' case to create an "illogical" rule. This rule is contrasted with United States Supreme Court precedent from cases like 'Santobello' and 'Giglio', which establish that promises made by one prosecutor are binding on other prosecutors within the same office and must be disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00021053.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00020788.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling on requests made by a party named Maxwell for the immediate disclosure of specific materials from the Government. The requested items include witness interviews, FBI reports, diary pages, and subpoenas. The Court denies Maxwell's requests, reasoning that the Government has affirmed its compliance with its disclosure obligations (under Brady and Giglio), some materials are protected by the Jencks Act, some are not in the Government's possession, and other requests are overly broad.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00022088.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) motion for discovery. The government contends that searching for certain records from the BOP, CIA, and Vice President's office would be an undue burden and that a draft Inspector General report is not subject to disclosure because it is not material to the defense and is protected by deliberative process privilege. The government states the report is not yet complete and the prosecution team has no involvement in its creation.
DOJ-OGR-00022086.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a discovery request from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends that it is not required to produce records from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) because the BOP was not part of the prosecution team or involved in a 'joint investigation'. The document distinguishes the roles of the prosecution (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, DOJ-OIG) from the BOP, noting the Government obtained BOP records via subpoena and was not involved in the BOP's internal investigation into Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically an argument regarding the scope of the government's discovery obligations. It cites several legal precedents (Brady, Giglio, Avellino, Kyles, Barcelo) to argue that a prosecutor's duty to disclose information is limited to materials in their possession or the possession of the 'prosecution team' (e.g., investigating officers), and does not extend to information held by separate, uninvolved government entities.
DOJ-OGR-00022082.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends it is not required to produce documents from separate investigations conducted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or other federal agencies into the death of Jeffrey Epstein, because those agencies are not part of the prosecution team and the materials are not in the prosecution's possession.
DOJ-OGR-00022076.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that it has fulfilled its discovery obligations under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16. The Government details the materials it has produced, including records surrounding Epstein's suicide and employee files for Noel and Thomas, and cites legal precedents from the Southern District of New York to support its position that the defendant's motion to compel further discovery should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00022074.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing dated April 24, 2020. It outlines the Government's legal obligation under the Due Process Clause, as established by the landmark cases Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense. The text defines what constitutes "material" evidence and discusses legal precedents that clarify the scope and limitations of this disclosure requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00022064.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 35) in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It outlines the government's legal arguments against providing additional discovery materials to a defendant named Thomas. The arguments assert that the government has met its obligations, the requested materials are not relevant, and they are not required to collect materials from agencies outside the prosecution team.
DOJ-OGR-00022042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a broad interpretation of the prosecution's 'Brady obligations.' It asserts that the government must disclose not only admissible favorable evidence but any information that could lead to such evidence, resolving any doubts in favor of disclosure to the defense. The document cites several legal precedents, including Safavian and Paxson, to support the claim that the pretrial standard is simply whether evidence is favorable, not whether it would change the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00021839.jpg
This legal document, page 15 of a filing dated November 1, 2024, argues that the legal precedent in 'Annabi' is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court rulings. It cites the cases of 'Santobello' (1971) and 'Giglio' (1972) to support the principle that a prosecutor's office functions as a single entity for the government, and therefore, promises made by one prosecutor (such as in plea or immunity agreements) are binding on others, even across different districts.
DOJ-OGR-00004732.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defense's motion for early disclosure of impeachment material related to a witness, Minor Victim-4. The Government contends that Minor Victim-4's prior consistent statement from a deposition, made over a decade before the defendant's 2020 indictment, confirms the defendant's role in scheduling her massages with Epstein, thereby undermining the defense's claim of recent fabrication. The Government affirms its intent to provide this material ten days before trial, in line with customary practice.
DOJ-OGR-00004709.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 295) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on May 25, 2021. It outlines the arguments to be made in the filing, which address several motions from the defendant, including arguments related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, double jeopardy, pre-trial delay, and the disclosure of statements from 'Minor Victim-4'.
DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
This legal document, page 5 of a filing from April 5, 2021, presents the U.S. Government's argument for having legal standing to challenge subpoenas issued to third parties. Citing multiple court precedents (including Nachamie, Cole, and Carton), the Government asserts its legitimate interest in preventing witness harassment, controlling the timing of disclosures (such as Giglio material), and protecting its own communications. The document argues that allowing the Government to intervene is the only way to protect these interests, especially when a subpoena recipient may not be fully aware of the case's context.
DOJ-OGR-00002710.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on February 4, 2021. The motion requests the court to order the government to disclose favorable evidence and, more significantly, to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements from alleged co-conspirators, particularly the deceased Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that admitting such testimonial statements without the possibility of cross-examination would be highly prejudicial and cites legal precedents like the 'Geaney rule' to support the need for a prior hearing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity