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-00010425.jpg
This legal document, part of a court case, argues against the application of the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines for a defendant whose criminal conduct is alleged to have ended 'in or about 2004'. The filing contends that applying the later, harsher guidelines would be an ex post facto violation, as the jury never made a specific factual finding that the conduct continued past the 2004 Guidelines' effective date. It further argues that having the court, rather than the jury, determine the offense end date would violate the defendant's (Ms. Maxwell's) Sixth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00010421.jpg
This document is page 4 of a 29-page legal filing (Document 662) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 15, 2022. It is a table of authorities listing various court cases, statutes such as the 'Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998', and other sources like the Merriam-Webster dictionary and United States Sentencing Guidelines. The page numbers where these authorities are cited within the main document are also provided.
DOJ-OGR-00010400.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a response from the prosecution, arguing that the court's jury instructions were proper. It states the court correctly instructed the jury to consider only New York law as the predicate offense for the Mann Act counts and was right to reject the defendant's requests for additional limiting instructions regarding testimony about events in New Mexico and varying ages of consent. The filing asserts that the defendant's claim of potential jury confusion is speculative and implausible.
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010390.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 29, 2022. It addresses the Defendant's argument that her conviction was based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, because a jury note suggested they found her guilty of intending a crime in New Mexico, rather than New York as charged. The court refutes this claim, concluding there is no 'substantial likelihood' that the Defendant was convicted of an offense different from the one in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010381.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 29, 2022, argues that two counts against the defendant (Count Three and Count Five) are multiplicitous and constitute double jeopardy. The argument is based on the government's own trial presentation, which framed the defendant's actions with co-conspirator Epstein as a single, decade-long conspiracy or "scheme." Citing legal precedents like Korfant and Josephberg, the document contends the proper remedy is for the court to enter judgment on only one of the two counts.
DOJ-OGR-00010378.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a single, continuous conspiracy of abuse existed for over a decade, involving a defendant and Epstein. It dismisses the distinction between an 'earlier phase' and a later 'pyramid scheme,' asserting that massage was the consistent, primary method used throughout to normalize contact with minor victims and facilitate sexual abuse. The document cites trial testimony to support the claim that the defendant played an essential role in this scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00010372.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, outlines the Second Circuit's legal framework for determining whether multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy or distinct conspiracies, thereby implicating double jeopardy concerns. It details the eight 'Korfant factors' used in this analysis and describes the burden-shifting framework where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous showing of a single conspiracy, after which the burden shifts to the Government to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010353.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The court analyzes and rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that Juror 50 was biased due to dishonest answers on a jury questionnaire. The court distinguishes this case from precedents involving deliberate deception, crediting Juror 50's explanation that his nondisclosure was an 'inadvertent mistake' resulting from personal distractions and 'skimming' the form.
DOJ-OGR-00010347.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court ruling (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The text addresses the legal standard for 'Actual Bias' and specifically rules that the record does not support a finding that 'Juror 50' was biased. The Court found Juror 50's testimony credible, noting that he affirmed his personal history of sexual abuse would not impact his impartiality or ability to assess witness credibility, rejecting the Defendant's (Maxwell) argument that his responses were merely self-serving.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010269.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists various legal precedents (cases) and statutes that are cited in the main body of the legal document. The cited authorities primarily consist of federal cases, many from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal and New York state statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00010196.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III on March 7, 2013, regarding the sentencing of David Parse. It argues for leniency, distinguishing Parse's role as a broker executing trades from those who designed the illegal tax shelters (referencing Donna Guerin and the Jenkins law firm). The document appears to be an exhibit (A-5941) filed in the later Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) in 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010183.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal argument in court. A lawyer is addressing a judge ('your Honor') about whether a mistake made by a 'Mr. Parse' constituted defrauding the government. The core of the argument revolves around a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad and whether it can be used to infer prejudice, with the lawyer citing Rule 606(b) and a Third Circuit case to argue against its use for that purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. In the transcript, a witness named Ms. Brune is excused by the court. The government's attorney, Mr. Okula, then calls a new witness, Laura Joy Edelstein, who is sworn in and begins her direct examination with a question about a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009915.jpg
This document is a table of contents (Page xii) from a court filing filed on August 11, 2022. It lists historical legal documents from 2012 and 2013 related to the case of United States v. David Parse, including affidavits, sentencing memoranda, restitution calculations for Jenkens and Gilchrist clients, and correspondence between attorney Paul Shechtman and Judge Pauley. The document appears to be part of a larger appendix or record on appeal released via FOIA (DOJ-OGR).
DOJ-OGR-00009914.jpg
This document is page xi of a table of contents for a legal filing dated August 3, 2022. It lists various exhibits, transcripts, and legal documents related to a case, including affidavits, emails, jury selection materials, and transcripts from hearings and a conference that took place in 2011 and 2012. The entries reference several individuals, such as Brune, Viviann Stapp, Daniel Nardello, and Steven Gillers, and detail communications and legal proceedings pertinent to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009887.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a court case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text argues against the government's position by analyzing several legal precedents, including McDonough, Shaoul, Langford, and Greer, concerning the standard for proving juror bias and granting a new trial. The author contends that a deliberate falsehood by a juror is not a prerequisite for a new trial, citing cases that establish a multi-part test where juror dishonesty is one of several factors to consider.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
This legal document page argues that a new trial is warranted when a biased juror is seated, regardless of whether the juror's false answers during voir dire were deliberate or inadvertent. It cites several Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases, including McDonough, Langford, and Leonard, to support this interpretation and refutes the government's contrary reading of these precedents. The argument centers on the idea that the key issue is juror bias, not the intent behind a juror's dishonesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity