District Attorney
PersonRelationship Network
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Lower court proceedings | Lower Court (New York) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Appeal proceedings | Appellate Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dedham woman recants rape charges against four men due to inconsistent forensic evidence. | Dedham, Massachusetts | View |
DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
This document is page 55 of 80 from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion citing the precedent of *Commonwealth v. Zuber*, discussing the legal obligation of prosecutors to honor promises made during plea bargaining. This is likely included in a defense motion arguing for the enforcement of a non-prosecution agreement (likely the Epstein NPA) based on the principle of 'benefit of the bargain.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016503.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing submitted by 'the Post' (likely a media organization) arguing against the wholesale sealing of appellate briefs in a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. Citing New York Civil Rights Law and case precedents, the Post argues that the District Attorney should only be permitted to redact the names of victims to protect their identities, rather than keeping the entire record sealed. The document includes a footnote discussing the Post's inability to notify victims directly due to lack of knowledge of their identities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal motion filed by 'The Post' (likely the New York Post) requesting the unsealing of appellate briefs related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text highlights that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office initially argued for Epstein to be adjudicated as a 'level one offender' (lowest risk) despite evidence of offenses against underage girls, before changing their position on appeal. The filing argues that the public has a right to know the justifications for this initial leniency and alleges potential prosecutorial missteps and favoritism.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017189.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a draft manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of age 31 and Grove Press) discussing First Amendment law and obscenity cases. The text analyzes the legal implications of *Stanley v. Georgia* and *Roth v. United States* regarding private possession versus public distribution of obscene material. It concludes with a personal narrative about the author achieving a legal victory for Grove Press and subsequently arguing the appeal before the Supreme Court at age 31.
Defense of students/Protest against charges
Described the incident as merely a protest and claimed students left peacefully.
Dispute resolution
Encourages parties to resolve dispute with minimum rhetoric.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity