Gambino

Person
Mentions
18
Relationships
0
Events
2
Documents
8

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
No relationships found for this entity.
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
1995-01-01 Legal case ruling United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir. 1995) cited as legal precedent. 2d Cir. View
1993-01-01 Legal case United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) S.D.N.Y. View

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00001802.jpg

This page from a legal filing argues against the defense's position that a co-conspirator committing similar crimes without the defendant constitutes exculpatory evidence under Brady. The Government cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that evidence of a defendant's non-participation in other criminal events or lawful conduct on other occasions is irrelevant to disproving specific charged crimes.

Legal brief / court filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00001788.jpg

This document is Page 2 of a court filing (likely from United States v. Maxwell based on the case number) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Government updates the court on discovery progress, committing to a November 9, 2020 deadline for electronic discovery and outlining schedules for producing witness statements (Brady/Giglio materials) 4 to 8 weeks before trial. The document also argues the legal scope of the prosecution's obligations, citing case law (Avellino, Quinn) to assert that the prosecution is not responsible for knowledge held by other government agencies (like the FBI) not directly involved in the investigation.

Court filing (letter to judge regarding discovery)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021895.jpg

This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg

This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00003009.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the admissibility of certain evidence in the case against Epstein. It cites multiple legal precedents establishing that proof of lawful conduct on some occasions is irrelevant to disproving a specific criminal charge. The document applies this to the Epstein case, asserting that a prior investigation's findings about his conduct in the 2000s are irrelevant to the current charges from 1994-1997, and notes that two key victims were only interviewed for the first time in late 2019.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002949.jpg

This document is page 15 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing various United States court cases from 'Falso' to 'Gracesqui' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document.

Legal document
2025-11-20

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029745.jpg

This document is a log of email messages exchanged on December 5, 2018, primarily from the address 'e:jeeitunes@gmail.com' (associated with Jeffrey Epstein). The conversation covers biological metaphors for social structure (mentioning 'apothosis' or apoptosis), a proposal for a Harvard course on 'the gangster game' modeled on world leaders like Trump and Putin, and a discussion about the 'Me Too' movement and populist nationalism. The document originates from a House Oversight Committee investigation.

Email/message log (house oversight committee record)
2025-11-19
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity