This document is an email chain from November 2021 between Assistant United States Attorneys for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The correspondence concerns the urgent drafting of a 'Daubert motion' to preclude expert witnesses, specifically naming Dietz, Loftus, and Rocchio (likely defense experts for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The team is coordinating late-night revisions to have a draft ready for their supervisors ('chiefs') by the following morning.
This document is an email chain from August 2019 between attorney Gloria Allred and an Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York. They discuss scheduling interviews for victims of Jeffrey Epstein. While one client declined to meet, Allred confirms that another victim has agreed to fly commercially (Delta) from Los Angeles to New York to meet with prosecutors on August 19, 2019.
An email dated January 8, 2021, with the subject 'PCU Updates'. The sender is the Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District (likely of New York). The email contains an attachment labeled 'PC_Unit_--_Short_Form_Update.1.8.21_(002).docx'.
This document is an email from Nicole Simmons (Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.) to Judge Nathan's chambers in the U.S. v. Maxwell case, dated November 13, 2021. It serves as a transmittal for filing Ghislaine Maxwell's response to the government's motion to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. The filing was submitted under temporary seal to allow for potential redactions by the government.
This document excerpt details various legal agreements and plea agreements across different U.S. judicial districts, outlining the scope and binding nature of these agreements between defendants and specific United States Attorney offices or divisions of the Department of Justice. It emphasizes which entities are bound by each agreement and which are not. The document includes specific case citations with dates, defendants, and ECF numbers.
This document is an excerpt from a legal document discussing the enforceability of plea agreements made by the U.S. Attorney's Office, particularly concerning whether such agreements bind the entire government or only the specific office involved. It contrasts the Ninth Circuit's view, which generally holds agreements binding on the whole government, with the Second and Seventh Circuits' opposite presumption, which limits enforceability to the specific U.S. Attorney's office unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text references case law such as United States v. Johnston and Annabi.
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing that argues about the scope of plea agreements. It discusses whether a plea agreement made with a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district can prevent prosecutions in other districts, citing several legal precedents like United States v. Alessi and United States v. Russo. The document uses Leslie Groff, an assistant to Epstein, as an example and analyzes factors such as whether other USAOs or the Department of Justice were involved in the negotiations.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
This document is a court transcript from December 16, 2019, detailing a hearing about the pretrial release conditions for defendants Thomas and Noel. The conditions discussed include restrictions on alcohol use and mandatory mental health evaluation, as directed by pretrial services. An attorney, Mr. Foy, objects to one of the conditions, stating it was not part of a prior agreement on the terms of release.
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that a plea agreement made by a United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district is generally binding on other USAOs and the federal government as a whole. It cites several court cases, such as Gebbie and Van Thournout, to support this majority view, while also acknowledging contrary or more limited rulings from circuits like the Seventh and Sixth in a footnote.
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrow questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and protect the integrity of jury deliberations, citing numerous legal precedents where courts have similarly controlled such inquiries. The Government also argues against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery" and calling other jurors as witnesses.
This document is page xiii from a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities from Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited within the larger document, providing the case name, legal citation, and the page numbers where each case is referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law journal article) produced to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and specifically analyzes case law determining that victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. It prominently cites 'Does v. United States' (the Epstein case) in the Southern District of Florida, noting that the court rejected the government's dismissal attempts and acknowledged that victims might be entitled to invalidate Epstein's nonprosecution agreement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity