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-00002946.jpg
This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00002943.jpg
This document is page 9 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations alphabetically from 'Miller v. Pate' to 'SEC v. TheStreet.com'. Each entry includes the case name, its legal reporter citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00004729.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing from May 25, 2021, outlines the prosecution's argument against a defendant's motion. It details allegations from the S2 Indictment, stating the defendant facilitated the sex trafficking of 'Minor Victim-4' to Epstein by scheduling appointments, making payments, and encouraging recruitment of others. The document argues these details are sufficient to deny the defendant's request for a bill of particulars, citing several legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00004717.jpg
This legal document, filed on May 25, 2021, is a legal argument concerning the scope of plea agreements across different federal judicial districts. The author argues, based on Second Circuit precedent like Annabi, that a plea agreement from one district does not bind another unless explicitly stated. The document contrasts this with a broader interpretation from the Third Circuit (in United States v. Gebbie), which the defendant in the current case (Maxwell) is urging the court to adopt.
DOJ-OGR-00004714.jpg
This page is from a government legal filing (Document 295) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). Citing the *Annabi* precedent, the government asserts that plea agreements are generally only binding in the specific district where they are signed, not universally across all federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00004701.jpg
This legal document, filed in 2021, describes events in September and October 2007 surrounding a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. It details that victims were not consulted before the agreement, which deferred prosecution to Florida, and outlines subsequent attempts to notify them, including an FBI interview attempt with victim S.R. and contact with victim C.W.
DOJ-OGR-00004653.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Non-Prosecution Agreement/Plea Agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines sentencing deadlines (late 2007/early 2008), attempts to keep the agreement out of the public record, and crucially grants immunity from federal criminal charges to four named potential co-conspirators: Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. It also suspends pending federal Grand Jury investigations and subpoenas conditional on Epstein's compliance.
DOJ-OGR-00004631.jpg
This document is page 5 of a plea/non-prosecution agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It details sentencing timelines (late 2007/early 2008), rules regarding 'gain time' in Florida custody, and a mutual anticipation that the agreement would remain secret from the public record. Crucially, it contains the controversial clause granting immunity from federal criminal charges to any 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' with specific names redacted, and suspends the federal Grand Jury investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00004630.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a larger agreement, details the terms between the United States and Epstein regarding potential civil lawsuits from identified victims. Epstein agrees not to contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for suits filed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, waives his right to contest liability and some damages, and will pay for the victims' legal representative. The agreement explicitly states that Epstein's signature and waivers do not constitute an admission of civil or criminal liability, especially for any person not on the government-provided list.
DOJ-OGR-00004623.jpg
This document is page 3 of the controversial 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States (Southern District of Florida). It outlines that Epstein must plead guilty and be sentenced by September 28, 2007, and begin his sentence by October 15, 2007. It specifically limits the list of identified victims provided to the defense to 'not exceed forty' and stipulates that Epstein acknowledges these victims were minors. It also details waivers regarding the statute of limitations and speedy trial rights.
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against the retroactive application of a 2003 Amendment to the alleged offenses of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that Congressional intent was clear in rejecting retroactivity and that applying the amendment would have impermissible effects. The argument is supported by legal precedents, including Landgraf, Toussie, and Gentile, which favor interpreting criminal statutes of limitation in a way that provides 'repose' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00014612.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a charge or jury instruction from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It defines the federal crime of conspiracy by quoting States Code, Section 371, and explains the legal concept to the jury. The document specifies that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the intended crime was not completed and outlines the elements the government must prove for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014605.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing jury instructions for Count Six, a charge of sex trafficking of a minor. It cites the relevant law, Title 18, Section 1591 of the U.S. Code, and lists the four elements the government must prove for a conviction. The document specifies that this charge pertains to actions involving a person named Carolyn between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00005814.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio regarding delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. It cites several legal precedents (Raniere, Young, Betcher) to demonstrate that such testimony is helpful for juries to understand victim behavior. The document also addresses the defendant's specific challenge that Dr. Rocchio is not an expert on memory in general, with the Government conceding that point but affirming her expertise in the relevant field of trauma psychology.
DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues against the defendant's claim regarding expert testimony in a sex trafficking case. It cites Judge Engelmayer's reasoning from another case (United States v. Randall) to assert that statistical error rates are an 'unusually poor fit' for evaluating qualitative research on trauma and grooming. The document concludes that the proper way to challenge the expert's (Dr. Rocchio's) findings is through cross-examination before a jury, not by deeming them irrelevant under a Daubert analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00005794.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a motion arguing for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio. The document refutes the defendant's claim that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are unreliable, asserting that the testimony on coercion, attachment, and grooming in abuser-victim relationships is well-supported and will help the jury understand the evidence at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005791.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, which discusses the legal standards for the admissibility of expert testimony. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Felder and Kumho Tire, to argue that an expert's testimony can be based on personal experience and that it is generally the jury's role, not the court's, to resolve conflicting expert opinions. The document concludes by asserting that the rejection of expert testimony should be an exception.
DOJ-OGR-00005790.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 7 of document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for admitting expert testimony under the 'Daubert' framework, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and numerous precedent cases. The text explains that a court must first assess an expert's qualifications and then determine if their testimony is both relevant and reliable, detailing several criteria for establishing reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00002771.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 22, 2021, is a portion of a court filing discussing the legal standards for a defendant's bail motion. It outlines the rebuttable presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), detailing the defendant's burden of production and the government's ultimate burden of persuasion. The document notes that the defendant has filed a third motion for bail, arguing for reconsideration based on new conditions and a purportedly weakened government case.
DOJ-OGR-00020132.jpg
This legal document is part of a motion where a defendant proposes a new, comprehensive bail package to secure release from pretrial detention. The defendant offers a $28.5 million package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family, along with conditions like home confinement, GPS monitoring, and restricted travel. The motion cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider its previous bail decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
This page from a legal document analyzes several precedent cases to argue for or against the detention of a defendant pending trial. It distinguishes the current case from others like *Khashoggi* and *Bodmer* where defendants were released, and draws parallels to cases like *Boustani*, *Patrick Ho*, and *Epstein* where defendants were detained. The analysis focuses on factors such as flight risk, financial resources, ties to foreign countries, and the existence of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00020089.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 18, 2020, argues for the continued detention of a female defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and skill at hiding. The filing dismisses proposed bail conditions, such as private security guards and GPS monitoring, as insufficient to ensure her appearance in court. To support its position, the document cites several past federal cases (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) where courts denied bail under similar circumstances, deeming electronic monitoring and home confinement inadequate for high-risk defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00020069.jpg
This page from a legal document details a court's decision to detain a defendant before trial, finding that electronic monitoring would be insufficient and dismissing concerns about COVID-19 risks. The document then outlines the applicable legal standard under the Bail Reform Act, explaining the government's burden to prove the defendant is a flight risk and the factors a court must consider.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity