United States Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 ruling | The Supreme Court ruled in Giglio v. United States, holding that an AUSA had a duty to disclose a... | N/A | View |
| 1971-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Supreme Court ruled in the Santobello case, holding that one prosecutor's promise in a plea a... | N/A | View |
| 1971-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Supreme Court ruling in the Santobello case (404 U.S. 257), establishing that a prosecutor's ... | N/A | View |
EFTA00037120.pdf
A screenshot of the CHILD USA website featuring the biography of its Founder & CEO, Prof. Marci A. Hamilton. The document outlines her academic background at the University of Pennsylvania and Cardozo School of Law, her expertise in child sex abuse statutes of limitation, and her legal advocacy including Supreme Court cases. The document bears the Bates stamp EFTA00037120.
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-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-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00021653.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' (page 'v') from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 79), dated June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents and case citations used in the main document, including Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. The document bears a DOJ-OGR (Office of General Review) footer, indicating it was likely released via FOIA or a similar transparency process.
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00010197.jpg
This document is a legal brief or letter to The Honorable William H. Pauley, III, discussing the case of a man named David, who was convicted of backdating transactions. It references the impact of the conviction on David's family and cites legal precedent from the United States Supreme Court and United States v. Adelson.
DOJ-OGR-00010145.jpg
This document is a page from the Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Gillers, likely submitted as an exhibit in a court case (possibly as an expert witness). It details his legal and public service activities between 1979 and 1992, including roles with the ABA, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the David Dinkins Mayoral Transition Search Committee. It also lists his bar memberships in New York and various federal courts. The document bears stamps from multiple court filings, including a 2012 criminal case and a 2022 civil case (likely Guiffre v. Maxwell), and a DOJ production number.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00009588.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding 'Applicable Law' specifically concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause and the concept of 'multiplicity' in criminal charges. It cites various precedents to argue that charges covering different schemes under different statutes are not identical and that the Court should reject the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009518.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, dated March 7, 2013. It serves as a sentencing memorandum for their client, David Parse, arguing for a non-incarcerative sentence following his conviction for involvement in backdating transactions. The letter emphasizes the significant personal, professional, and familial suffering Parse has endured since the investigation began in 2004 and cites legal precedents to support a lenient, individualized sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00009466.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a curriculum vitae or list of professional activities for Stephen Gillers. It details his public service roles and activities on various legal committees, commissions, and bar associations from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. The document also lists his state and federal bar memberships, including admission to the New York bar in 1968 and the United States Supreme Court bar in 1972.
DOJ-OGR-00002953.jpg
This document is page 19 of 239 from Document 204 filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It is a Table of Authorities page (numbered xviii) listing legal precedents cited in the filing, specifically cases beginning with 'United States v.' followed by names starting with M through N. It contains standard legal citations and page references for the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00002666.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 144) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It argues that 18 U.S.C. Section 3283 (extending statutes of limitations for child abuse offenses) does not apply to Maxwell's charges (Counts One through Four) regarding conduct in the 1990s. The text cites Supreme Court precedents (Shular v. United States, Bridges v. United States) to argue that statutory extensions only apply when the specific conduct (e.g., abuse or fraud) is an 'essential ingredient' of the charged offense.
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
This document is a handwritten page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing legal arguments regarding statutes of limitations and definitions of sexual abuse. The author critiques the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 18 USC statutes (specifically §3283, §3509, and §2251), arguing that procedural rules and statutes of limitations are not comparable and citing various case law precedents to support the argument. It concludes with a note about Biden's 1990 Senate bill S. 1965.
DOJ-OGR-00002696.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. It lists legal precedents cited in the main brief, focusing heavily on cases related to discovery, exculpatory evidence, and due process (e.g., Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, Kyles v. Whitley). The page includes a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00002696).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031670.jpg
A letter from attorney Robert K. Kelner to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence responding to a subpoena issued to Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn. The letter invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to decline the production of documents regarding Flynn's communications with Russian officials and the Trump campaign.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016544.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103), specifically the conclusion of an article discussing prosecutorial discretion, victim rights, and federalism/state jurisdiction. It appears to be an exhibit submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely to support legal arguments regarding the handling of the Epstein case, specifically concerning the non-prosecution agreement or federal/state jurisdiction issues. The text analyzes the differences between U.S. and foreign legal systems regarding the ability of victims to challenge decisions not to prosecute.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017394.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a book manuscript or draft (dated 4.2.12) discussing the separation of church and state in the United States. The author cites Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, and the Treaty of Tripoli to argue against the notion of the US as a 'Christian nation,' and recounts a 1988 controversy in Arizona where Republicans attempted to pass a resolution declaring it as such.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017202.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (dated draft 4.2.12) written by an attorney (historically identifiable as Alan Dershowitz) recounting the 'Quincy House Two' case at Harvard. It details the arrest of two students, Stork and Hagen, for screening the film *Deep Throat*, the subsequent protests, and the successful legal defense against District Attorney Droney, who was accused of acting as a censor. The text discusses the irony of censorship attempts and the disparity between legal rulings and public reality regarding obscenity.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013389.jpg
This page from a legal document argues that a fact-finder should draw adverse inferences from Jeffrey Epstein's refusal to answer specific deposition questions. It lists several unanswered questions regarding sexual assault allegations, contact with minors (L.M., Jane Doe, E.W.), and claims of fabricated cases by Mr. Edwards, proposing that his silence implies admission of guilt.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity