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-00009838.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues against the necessity of a hearing based on an anonymous juror's report of misconduct. It cites legal precedents, including United States v. Stewart and United States v. Guzman Loera, to establish that a high standard of "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence" is required, which anonymous tips do not meet. The document details the Guzman Loera case as an example where similar allegations of jurors being exposed to prejudicial media did not result in an evidentiary hearing, reinforcing the argument that the current situation does not warrant one either.
DOJ-OGR-00009832.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrowly tailored questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and is within the Court's discretion, citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and district courts to support its position. The filing opposes the defendant's request for 'pre-hearing discovery' and argues against calling other jurors as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00009829.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, discusses the legal standard for dismissing a juror based on "inferred bias." It cites several precedents, including *Torres*, *Greer*, and *Ploof*, to establish that such a dismissal is at the discretion of the trial court and requires a high standard of proof, typically developed during voir dire. The text argues that the court would not have struck Juror 50 for inferred bias based on a hypothetical disclosure of sexual abuse, and distinguishes the defendant's reliance on the *Torres* case, where a juror was struck for cause due to involvement in structuring cash deposits.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009762.jpg
This document is a schedule and instruction sheet provided to prospective Juror 50 for the trial associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the dates for jury selection (Nov 16-19, 2021) and the start of the trial (Nov 29, 2021), while emphasizing that the jury will not be sequestered and that standard financial hardships are insufficient grounds for excuse.
DOJ-OGR-00009751.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that a court should deny a discovery request from 'Juror No. 50'. The filing asserts that the juror has no legal standing to intervene in the criminal case, citing legal precedent. Furthermore, it reveals that Juror No. 50 is under investigation, and releasing the requested information would prejudice that investigation by allowing the juror to tailor responses and alter the investigation's focus.
DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a request by Ms. Maxwell to the Court for pre-hearing discovery. She asks the court to authorize subpoenas for the communications of Juror No. 50, who is alleged to have answered a question falsely during voir dire. The request seeks emails and other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors in the case to investigate potential juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009738.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell has met the burden of proof for this claim, citing legal precedents and suggesting that video evidence of the juror being confronted supports the allegation of intentional falsehood. The ultimate goal is to argue for the juror's implied or actual bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009728.jpg
This document is page 36 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents a legal argument specifically concerning 'Juror No. 50,' asserting that had the juror answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, they would have been challenged for cause. The text relies heavily on case law citations (McDonough, Wainwright, Stewart) to define legal standards for juror impartiality and materiality of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists numerous legal cases, from 1976 to 2021, that are cited as precedent within the main document. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
DOJ-OGR-00009651.jpg
This legal document, dated March 1, 2022, addresses the potential bias of Juror 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details questions posed to Juror 50 regarding his recollection of a jury questionnaire about sexual abuse, particularly in light of an interview he gave to a Daily Mail reporter. The document argues that Juror 50's childhood sexual abuse, similar to that of witnesses, is sufficient grounds for a 'for cause' challenge, citing legal precedent on implied and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg
This legal document excerpt details the conviction of 'the defendant' on multiple counts related to sex trafficking and exploitation. It outlines evidence showing the defendant's involvement in transporting and abusing Jane with Epstein, arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein for money, and recruiting Virginia, all while they were minors. The document emphasizes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite defense arguments regarding victim credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00009611.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the sufficiency of evidence to uphold a defendant's conviction on multiple counts. It details the defendant's role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, specifically by making travel arrangements for a victim named Jane and recruiting another victim, Virginia. The document cites trial testimony and legal precedents to assert that a rational jury could and did find the defendant guilty.
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the unavailability of certain witnesses (Pinto, Salhi, Markham, and Fontanilla). The author cites multiple legal precedents, including States v. Long and United States v. Scala, to assert that the defendant's claims are speculative and lack the definite proof of actual prejudice required by law to dismiss an indictment or vacate a conviction. The document concludes that the defense's unsworn assertions about what these witnesses might have testified to are insufficient legal grounds for their motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009598.jpg
This legal document outlines the Second Circuit's stringent standard for pre-indictment delay, which requires a defendant to prove both improper government purpose and serious, actual prejudice to their defense. It cites numerous legal precedents to emphasize the heavy burden on the defendant and to define substantial prejudice, noting that the mere loss of evidence or witnesses is typically insufficient. The document establishes that claims of pre-indictment delay are rarely successful.
DOJ-OGR-00009592.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 621) dated February 25, 2022. The author argues against a defendant's claim of multiplicity, urging the Court to apply the 'Korfant factors' for analyzing counts within the same indictment. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's claim should be rejected because the counts are legally distinct.
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.
DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, involving an individual named Mr. Parse accused of defrauding the government. An attorney, identified as CAC3PARC, argues before a judge about the nature of a mistake made in the case and, more significantly, about the interpretation of a juror's note written by Catherine Conrad. The attorney contends that under Rule 606(b) and precedent from a Third Circuit case, the note cannot be used to infer prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009383.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 322) filed on February 24, 2022. It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Brune and the commencement of testimony by a new government witness, attorney Laurie Edelstein. During direct examination, Mr. Okula asks Ms. Edelstein a hypothetical question regarding a lawyer's ethical obligation to report jury misconduct to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00003145.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 16, 2021. The Government argues that its proposed schedule for providing discovery materials (including Section 3500, Giglio, and Jencks Act information) to the defense is adequate and even exceeds the standard practice in the district for high-profile cases. The Government offers to produce non-testifying witness statements eight weeks before trial and testifying witness materials four weeks in advance, asserting this provides ample time for the defense to prepare.
DOJ-OGR-00003133.jpg
This legal document is a court's discussion regarding a defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of an indictment, arguing they are multiplicitous (i.e., charge the same crime multiple times). The Court decides that the motion is premature and defers its ruling until after the trial is complete. The Court reasons that a full factual record is needed for the analysis and the issue could become moot depending on the jury's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
This legal document page outlines the applicable law concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing multiplicitous charges. It defines a multiplicitous indictment as one that charges a single crime in multiple counts and cites several legal precedents (e.g., North Carolina v. Pearce, United States v. Chacko) to explain that a defendant cannot be punished multiple times for the same offense. The document clarifies the legal standard for a multiplicity claim and the procedural remedies courts should use to protect a defendant's rights.
DOJ-OGR-00003125.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a government response in a criminal case. The prosecution argues that evidence concerning 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible to prove a conspiracy, even though a direct charge based on her testimony is time-barred because she turned 25 before 2003. The government asserts that the charges remain timely due to the involvement of 'Minor Victim-1' and 'Minor Victim-2' and distinguishes the current case from a cited precedent (*Hsia*) by stating the alleged conduct, grooming a minor for Jeffrey Epstein, is central to the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
This document is a legal filing from April 16, 2021, arguing that an indictment against a defendant is legally sufficient. It cites several legal precedents, including Russell v. United States and United States v. Pirro, to establish the standards for specificity in indictments. The author contends that the indictment in question meets these standards by laying out all essential elements of the crimes charged and that the defendant has provided no legal authority to suggest otherwise.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity