First Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The First Circuit considered the issue of Section 3283's retroactivity in *United States v. Mille... | N/A | View |
066.pdf
This document is a Government Memorandum filed on July 29, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, responding to Court Orders regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. The Government supports the disclosure of these transcripts due to significant public interest, noting that Epstein is deceased and Maxwell is incarcerated, but requests redactions to protect victim identities. The memo analyzes the 'In re Craig' factors for unsealing grand jury records and confirms that the key law enforcement witnesses are still active.
EFTA00026434.pdf
This document is a Law360 Public Policy email newsletter from April 4, 2019, summarizing various legal and political developments. Key topics include Senate rule changes for judicial nominees, the release of the Mueller Report, and a budget hearing where Labor Secretary Alex Acosta defended his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex crime case. The newsletter also covers antitrust cases, environmental rulings, and the 'Varsity Blues' college admissions scandal court appearances.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00000747.jpg
This legal memorandum is submitted by the Government in response to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. The Government outlines the legal framework for such a release, citing a 'Circuit split' on the issue and precedent from the Second Circuit, while emphasizing its duty to protect victims. It also references a prior, unsuccessful attempt to unseal similar transcripts related to Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00002286.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'joinder' (combining) and 'severance' (separating) of criminal charges, citing various precedents to argue that offenses separated by time, location, or circumstance should not be tried together. It specifically addresses the standards for joining perjury or false statement counts with substantive crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
DOJ-OGR-00013210.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is arguing to admit a prior document for 'impeachment by omission,' stating that the witness (Carolyn) filed a complaint and was interviewed by the FBI in 2008 regarding sexual abuse by Epstein and his employee Sarah Kellen, but notably failed to mention Ghislaine Maxwell at that time. Pagliuca argues this contradicts the government's current narrative which emphasizes Maxwell's role while downplaying Kellen's.
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009041.jpg
This legal document discusses the critical issue of juror impartiality and memory reliability in court proceedings. It references the Sampson v. United States case, where a new penalty-phase hearing was ordered due to a juror's undisclosed personal experiences as a crime victim, drawing parallels to concerns about Juror No. 50's ability to fairly evaluate evidence in the current case. The document also incorporates expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding the confidence and accuracy of memories, emphasizing the potential for bias when jurors' personal experiences align with case details.
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00010168.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript (filed March 24, 2022) discussing legal arguments regarding 'ineffective assistance' of counsel and 'waivers.' The speaker cites legal precedents including 'Chappee' in the First Circuit and 'Flores' in the Second Circuit, discussing the 'Rosario material' and '3500 material' (discovery rules) in the context of New York law and federal appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00002994.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, analyzes the permissibility of applying statutes of limitation retroactively. It discusses several Second Circuit precedents, distinguishing between impermissibly reviving time-barred claims (*In re Enterprise Mortgage*) and permissibly altering filing periods for live claims (*Vernon*). The text also references an opinion by Judge Learned Hand on the fairness of extending an active criminal statute of limitations.
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-00002664.jpg
This page from a legal filing in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell argues against the retroactive application of extended statutes of limitations in criminal cases, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and cases like Landgraf and Stogner. A crucial footnote asserts that the government is barred from prosecuting Maxwell for offenses against Minor Victim-3 because the statute of limitations had already expired when the victim turned 25 (year redacted) prior to the 2003 Amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00005361.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a court filing (Document 367-1) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It outlines proposed 'Voir Dire' (jury selection) questions focused on determining if potential jurors have been biased by pretrial publicity regarding Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The document includes sidebar annotations showing a legal dispute where the Government objects to specific questions as repetitive or inappropriate, while the Defense argues they are necessary to ensure an impartial jury, citing case law such as *United States v. Tsarnaev*.
DOJ-OGR-00005335.jpg
This document is a proposed juror questionnaire from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. It includes a section on 'Media Issues' which is contested by the government and defended by the defendant. The defendant's response argues for in-depth questioning about media exposure, citing legal precedents like the Tsarnaev case to emphasize the necessity of uncovering potential juror bias in high-profile cases involving individuals like Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity