Stevens
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Blackmun, J.
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Author
|
Interview source |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal decision | The Supreme Court's decision in the McDonough case, establishing a test for granting a new trial ... | Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001803.jpg
This is page 3 of a Government legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated October 20, 2020. The Government argues that certain materials requested by the defense are not relevant under Rule 16 because the charges are strictly limited to conduct between 1994 and 1997, and do not allege Maxwell acted as a 'madam' generally. The Government proposes disclosing the disputed materials (approx. 40 pages) eight weeks prior to trial, citing 'United States v. Coppa' to support that immediate disclosure is not required for 'Brady' material.
DOJ-OGR-00022077.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) request for certain records. The government contends that the records—related to BOP staffing, policies, and other employees—are not 'material' to preparing a legal defense under Rule 16. Instead, the government asserts Thomas seeks these records for the impermissible purpose of encouraging jury nullification by arguing that poor conditions at the BOP 'led' to his alleged criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00022075.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 24, 2020, is a portion of a government motion arguing that it has fulfilled its discovery obligations to a defendant named Thomas. The government asserts it has complied with legal standards, including Rule 16 and the Brady rule, by providing substantial evidence, such as hundreds of hours of video surveillance, well in advance of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00022067.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 34-page legal filing (Document 35 in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT), filed on April 24, 2020. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases cited within the main document, such as United States v. Payne and United States v. Pelullo. Each entry includes the full legal citation and the page number(s) where the case is referenced in the filing.
DOJ-OGR-00021773.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, filed July 27, 2023) arguing for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The text specifically attacks the credibility of 'Juror 50,' alleging he gave intentionally false statements under oath regarding his own history of sexual abuse during the jury questionnaire process. It cites legal precedents (McDonough, Jones v. Cooper) to argue that actual or implied bias warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been struck for cause due to bias revealed in press statements. It cites legal precedent, primarily the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough and the Second Circuit's test in United States v. Stewart, to assert that a new trial can be granted based on a juror's inaccurate voir dire response, even if the response was not deliberately dishonest. The document contends that the key is whether the juror was actually biased and whether a correct answer would have provided grounds for a challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00009034.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, which analyzes legal precedent concerning juror bias, specifically from the case of McDonough. It presents quotes from concurring opinions by Justice Blackmun and Justice Brennan, arguing that an intentionally false answer from a juror is not a necessary condition for a new trial and that juror bias can be inferred from circumstances. The document highlights the judicial reasoning that a trial court retains the option to hold a post-trial hearing to determine bias, regardless of a juror's honesty during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker discusses the legal distinction between a deficient performance by a law firm and a deliberate strategic judgment. The speaker uses a hypothetical scenario involving the 'Brune firm' deciding to 'sandbag the Court' to argue that a conscious choice to withhold information is a strategic decision, not simply oversight or carelessness, referencing opinions from the Second Circuit and a dissent by Justice Stevens.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019520.jpg
This document is page 32 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets' (likely by Edward Jay Epstein), stamped as a House Oversight exhibit. It details Edward Snowden's employment with Dell in 2009, his work on the NSA backup system EPICSHELTER, and his discovery of security flaws regarding system administrator access. The text also references his lack of academic credits from UMUC and compares the role of 'rogue system administrators' to the ideology of Julian Assange.
Snowden's academic record
Stevens confirmed Snowden received no credits or certificate from UMUC in 2009.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity