Bernstein
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Wright
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1957-01-01 | Legal case | Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 | New Jersey Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror 50, failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection. This omission prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge, and the juror later revealed his bias to the media by stating his memory was 'like a video' and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility. The argument cites numerous New Jersey court precedents where judgments were invalidated for similar juror inaccuracies.
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-00010757.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 29, 2022, argues for the immediate unsealing of a defendant's motion for a new trial and related documents, such as juror questionnaires. The argument is based on the First Amendment right of public access to court proceedings, which is asserted to be particularly strong when allegations of juror misconduct are involved. The document contends that the public interest in transparency is significant, especially in a high-profile case, and that no sufficient justification for sealing the documents has been provided.
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to seal a motion for a new trial, which was based on a juror's alleged failure to properly answer a questionnaire. The author asserts the public's common law right of access to judicial documents, citing legal precedents like 'Amodeo' and 'Lugosch' to argue that the defendant has not met the high standard for secrecy. The document suggests that limited redactions, rather than a complete seal, would be a more appropriate course of action.
DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial due to material omissions by a juror, identified as Juror 50. The juror failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection, which prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge and would have been grounds for dismissal for cause. The argument is bolstered by citing the juror's later statements to the media, where he claimed his memory "was like a video" and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility, revealing a bias that tainted the trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity