Trove
Sign In Sign Up

D. Conn.

Organization
Mentions
22
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
11
Also known as:
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (D. Conn.) United States District Court District of Connecticut (D. Conn.)
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00001735.jpg

The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.

Legal filing / letter motion
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002323.jpg

This document is page 3 (Table of Authorities) of a legal filing (Document 126) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists legal precedents (cases) and statutes cited in the brief, including Supreme Court cases like Duren v. Missouri and Second Circuit cases like United States v. Jackman. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002323.

Court filing (table of authorities)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg

This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text argues legal standards for the 'Severance of Offenses,' citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 and various precedents regarding when charges should be tried separately to avoid prejudice to the defendant. It lists numerous case citations including U.S. v. Mitan, U.S. v. Bradford, and U.S. v. Burke to support the argument that misjoined counts must be severed.

Court document / legal brief (motion or memorandum of law)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002287(1).jpg

This document is page 9 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 'Severance of Offenses' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing various precedents to argue that counts should be severed if joinder prejudices the defendant. It discusses the legal standards for 'misjoinder' and 'substantial prejudice' required to grant a motion to sever.

Legal filing (court opinion/memorandum)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg

This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.

Legal filing (table of authorities)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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).

Legal brief / table of authorities
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019612.jpg

This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.

Legal filing / table of authorities
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00019552.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against a criminal defendant's request to use discovery materials in a civil case. The Government contends there is no precedent for such use and defends the secrecy of grand jury investigations and subpoenas against the defendant's accusations of impropriety. It cites several cases to support maintaining protective orders and separating criminal and civil proceedings.

Legal brief / letter to court
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002955.jpg

This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.

Legal filing (table of authorities)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00020063.jpg

This document is Page 3 of a legal filing entitled 'Table of Authorities' from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 18, 2020. It lists numerous legal precedents cited in the filing, primarily 'United States v. [Defendant]' cases. Notably, the list includes two citations for 'United States v. Epstein' (one from 2001 in E.D. Pa. and one from 2019 in S.D.N.Y.) and one for 'United States v. Madoff'.

Legal filing (table of authorities)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002826.jpg

This document is page 5 of a legal filing (filed March 24, 2021) outlining 'Applicable Law' under the Sixth Amendment regarding jury selection. It details the requirements for establishing a 'fair cross-section' of the community in a jury pool, citing precedents such as *Taylor v. Louisiana* and *Duren v. Missouri*. The footer indicates this document was processed by the Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR).

Legal memorandum / court filing (applicable law section)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search