United States
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Party to non prosecution agreement |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Office of the United Stat... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021831.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the legal precedent set in 'Annabi' should be overruled or limited because it creates unfairness in plea negotiations. The text specifically argues that a plea agreement negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit (likely referencing the Jeffrey Epstein 2008 Florida non-prosecution agreement) should bind the 'United States' globally, preventing prosecution in other districts for the same conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing dated September 17, 2024, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to establish the high standard required to prove such a variance and resulting prejudice. The document concludes that the evidence at trial did not prove facts different from those in the indictment, thereby refuting the defendant's claim.
DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021807.jpg
This legal document argues that the authority of U.S. Attorneys is statutorily limited to their specific federal districts, unless directed otherwise by the Attorney General. It applies this principle to a case involving Maxwell, suggesting that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not need to explicitly prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting, as their jurisdiction was already confined. The argument is supported by citations to U.S. Code and the legal precedent of 'Annabi'.
DOJ-OGR-00021800.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated September 2024) summarizing the history of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. It details Epstein's Florida plea deal (NPA), specifically quoting the clause that granted immunity to potential co-conspirators Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. It also outlines the specific legal counts brought against Ghislaine Maxwell in her federal indictment, including conspiracy to entice minors and sex trafficking conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021768.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the defense was denied a fair opportunity to expose juror bias during a post-verdict hearing. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Colombo and U.S. v. Greer, to define the constitutional duty of the court to allow for the discovery of bias. The document outlines three types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—to support the proposition that sufficient fact-finding is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021767.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable limitations on the questioning of Juror 50 during a post-verdict hearing. The filing contends that this prevented the defense for Ms. Maxwell from fully exploring the juror's potential bias, which was evidenced when he disclosed his own history of sexual assault to fellow jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations and the final verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021756.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intended to provide broad immunity to co-conspirators. It cites a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report where Epstein's counsel stated Epstein wanted to be the sole person to take blame. The document also notes that at the time of the agreement, the Government believed it lacked specific evidence against individuals like Ms. Maxwell, despite having interviewed accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
This legal document from July 27, 2023, argues that Ms. Maxwell has legal standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites precedent from the Second and Seventh Circuits to support the claim that the immunity granted in the NPA should prevent the United States from prosecuting her in the Southern District of New York. The document asserts that the District Court has already correctly found in Maxwell's favor on this point.
DOJ-OGR-00021748.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and statutes cited within the main document, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed primarily involve the United States as a party against various individuals and corporations in different federal courts.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
This legal document, page 75 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, presents arguments defending the conviction of Maxwell. It counters Maxwell's claims by stating the jury's verdict was plausible and not based on speculation, and that there was no variance between the indictment and the trial proof regarding events in New Mexico. The document asserts Maxwell had 'fair and adequate notice' of the charges, citing the government's disclosure of an interview with the victim, Jane, weeks before the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
This legal document, page 70 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the applicable law regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' in criminal indictments. It cites several precedents, including United States v. Khalupsky and United States v. D'Amelio, to define the conditions under which trial evidence or jury instructions improperly alter the original charges brought by a grand jury. The document distinguishes between a constructive amendment, which modifies the essential elements of the offense, and a variance, where the indictment's terms are unchanged but the evidence proves different facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated June 29, 2023, that outlines the legal framework for challenging jurors for cause. It details the different types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—and cites several U.S. court cases to define these categories and establish the criteria for their application. The text also briefly mentions the possibility of a post-verdict hearing for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021716.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the applicable law for granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a). It establishes the high burden of proof on the defendant and explains why post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct are strongly disfavored by the courts. The text cites several key legal precedents to support the argument that protecting the finality of jury verdicts and the integrity of deliberations is paramount.
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
DOJ-OGR-00021704.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the statutory definitions of "sexually explicit conduct" and "sexual contact" under 18 U.S.C. § 3509. It cites the 2012 Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Carpenter, to establish that the legal definition of "sexual abuse" is broad, encompassing not only physical contact but also acts of persuasion, inducement, or coercion.
DOJ-OGR-00021659.jpg
This document is page 'xi' of a legal filing, specifically Document 79 in Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and U.S. Code statutes that are cited within the larger document, along with the corresponding page numbers for each reference.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00021655.jpg
This document is page vii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal cases with the United States as the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation (including the court and year), and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00021590.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, is a transcript of a judge's ruling in Case 22-1426. The judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act does not constitute impermissible 'double counting' on top of the base offense. The judge cites legal precedent, including United States v. Watkins, to support the decision that the enhancement addresses a different facet of harm than the base offense level.
DOJ-OGR-00021587.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, is a judicial finding or ruling. The judge concludes that the defendant supervised Sarah Kellen, a knowing participant in a criminal conspiracy, thereby making the defendant a criminally responsible participant. This conclusion is based on testimony from Larry Visoski, David Rodgers, and Carolyn, as well as evidence from flight records and a household manual.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity