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-00019856.jpg
This page from a legal document argues against pretrial detention by citing several court precedents. It asserts that constitutional protections and the Bail Reform Act require that any doubts about releasing a defendant be resolved in their favor. The text emphasizes that even if a defendant is deemed a flight risk, the law still favors release under the least restrictive conditions possible.
DOJ-OGR-00019848.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, likely a brief, arguing that the pretrial detention conditions of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are untenable and amount to unconstitutional punishment. The author cites several legal precedents (Stephens, Weigand, Jackson, Melendez-Carrions) to support the claim that her inability to properly review discovery and the prolonged nature of her detention violate due process, especially given the government is seeking a life sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00019847.jpg
This legal document argues for the temporary pretrial release of Ms. Maxwell, citing legal statute § 3142(i) and precedent from the Robertson case. The argument centers on the necessity of release for trial preparation, highlighting the complexity of the case, the millions of pages of discovery documents, and the practical impossibilities of reviewing them while incarcerated before her trial set for July.
DOJ-OGR-00019846.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021. It presents legal arguments for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on a defendant's ability to communicate with counsel and prepare a defense. The text analyzes case precedents *United States v. Clark*, *Stephens*, and *United States v. Robertson*, highlighting that even defendants with serious charges (like Robertson) were released to prepare for trial during the pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00019843.jpg
This document is a page from a legal memorandum of law, dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-58. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents from 'United States v. Horton' and 'United States v. Shakur'. It then begins an argument that defendant Ghislaine Maxwell should be released because her confinement conditions prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00019750.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 21-58 concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from June 29, 2020, to July 7, 2020. It tracks the unsealing of the indictment, the assignment of the case to Judge Alison J. Nathan, the motion to detain the defendant, and the scheduling of the initial appearance and arraignment amidst COVID-19 restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00019677.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It identifies the presiding judges (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) and lists the legal counsel for both the appellee (United States), led by AUSA Lara Pomerantz, and the defendant-appellant (Ghislaine Maxwell), represented by Adam Mueller. The order was issued from the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York City.
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
This legal document, page 23 of a court filing dated October 2, 2020, argues that Judge Nathan correctly denied a motion by Maxwell. Maxwell sought to use discovery materials from her criminal case in a separate civil litigation, but the judge found her reasons to be "vague, speculative, and conclusory." The document notes that Maxwell had previously consented to a Protective Order prohibiting this and that she was aware the Government had charged her with perjury related to civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a brief or opinion, dated October 2, 2020. It argues against allowing an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal from a person named Maxwell regarding a Protective Order. The text cites several legal precedents (Mohawk, Pappas, Van Cauwenberghe) to support the position that such orders are not appealable until after a final judgment is rendered in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017233.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains Jury Instruction No. 32 regarding 'Conspiracy to violate federal law' (Counts One, Three, and Five). The judge defines conspiracy under Section 371 as a 'criminal partnership' and explicitly instructs that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crime was never committed.
DOJ-OGR-00013966.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus). The witness discusses her professional accolades, noting that her CV is 47 pages single-spaced. She highlights her election to the United States National Academy of Sciences in approximately 2004 as her most prestigious award.
DOJ-OGR-00013293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Sternheim (Defense), and Mr. Rohrbach (Government) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824, identified as insurance cards). The Judge cites *United States v. Lieberman* as relevant case law while the court waits for a delayed juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010761.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically a schedule information sheet for potential jurors. It outlines the dates for jury selection (Nov 16-19, 2021) and the start of the trial (Nov 29, 2021). The document clarifies that the jury will not be sequestered and sets a high bar ('extraordinary personal or financial hardship') for being excused from service.
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-00010718.jpg
This document is a page from a victim impact statement filed in June 2022 for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The survivor describes the trauma of attending the trial in New York, expresses frustration that high-profile "enablers" (politicians and wealthy friends) have not been exposed, and characterizes Maxwell as the "manager" of a massive trafficking conspiracy who lacks human decency.
DOJ-OGR-00010710.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that victims identified as Sarah and Elizabeth should be permitted to read their victim impact statements aloud at Maxwell's criminal sentencing. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Wilson and Kelly v. California, to support the court's authority to consider such testimony and asserts that doing so will not cause unfair prejudice to Maxwell. A footnote clarifies that Maxwell does not have the right to cross-examine victims during sentencing hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
DOJ-OGR-00010664.jpg
This document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley, counsel for Annie Farmer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 22, 2022. It provides Annie Farmer's victim impact statement regarding the crimes committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and requests permission for Ms. Farmer to make an oral statement at Maxwell's sentencing. The statement details the profound and ongoing psychological and emotional impact of the abuse on Annie Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a significant prison sentence (360 to 660 months) for a defendant convicted of sexually exploiting underage girls. It refutes the defendant's arguments for a lighter sentence by citing legal precedents (Stinson, Sash) that prioritize the plain text of sentencing guidelines over conflicting commentary. A footnote dismisses the defendant's comparison of her potential sentence to that of Epstein's as a flawed argument based on different guideline structures.
DOJ-OGR-00010479.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a significant downward variance in her sentence. The argument is based on the extraordinary hardship she endured during her pretrial detention, which occurred entirely during the COVID-19 pandemic and amounted to solitary confinement. The filing cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Gonzalez and United States v. Brissett, where courts have granted 'hard-time credit' for similar punitive conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00010478.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the harsh conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered a mitigating factor for sentencing. It cites multiple precedents from the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) to support the claim that the pandemic, with its associated lockdowns and health risks, has made prison time significantly more punitive than under normal circumstances. The argument is made in the context of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to warrant a downward variance in her sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010442.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 15, 2022, argues against applying a sentencing enhancement for 'undue influence'. The text asserts that the evidence does not support the claim that a witness named Carolyn was unduly influenced by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. To support this, it cites Carolyn's own testimony that she actively sought out massage appointments, recruited other minors for money, and refused offers to travel to Epstein's island, indicating her actions were voluntary.
DOJ-OGR-00010437.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell should not receive an aggravating role sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1. The core argument is that there is no evidence she supervised any other criminal participant in the offenses involving victims like 'Jane' and Annie Farmer. In fact, the document asserts that the trial record shows Ms. Maxwell was directed and managed by Epstein, making her ineligible for the enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00010435.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues against applying the sentencing guideline § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that the guideline is intended only for recidivist sex offenders who pose a continuing danger to the public, which they claim Ms. Maxwell is not. Applying the guideline would allegedly contradict the intent of Congress and the Sentencing Commission, improperly add over 10 years to her sentence, and lead to an absurd result.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity