Maynard
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Bowen
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court transcript or motion, dated December 17, 2021. The speaker argues against a defense strategy that challenges the thoroughness of a government investigation, citing multiple legal precedents (e.g., Watson, Gray v. Ercole, United States v. Birbal) to support the principle that the government's choice of investigative techniques is generally irrelevant to the defendant's guilt. The argument distinguishes these cases from another, Bowen v. Maynard, where evidence of an alternative suspect was deemed material.
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity