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-00020028.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should reconsider Ms. Maxwell's bail application based on new evidence. It cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider such decisions and states that Ms. Maxwell has received over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government since her initial hearing, which allegedly raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00005639.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 15 of Document 386 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The author argues that the expert testimony of an individual named Rocchio regarding 'grooming' should be deemed inadmissible because it is not based on scientific studies, is too general, and will not help the jury understand the specific facts of the case. The argument relies on legal precedents from cases like Daubert, Raymond, and Gonyer to assert that Rocchio's opinions do not meet the standard for expert testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00005628.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from October 29, 2021, specifically a table of authorities. It lists legal cases (United States v. Serna, Wehling v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp.), a scholarly article on child sexual abuse, and several Federal Rules of Evidence. The page indicates the legal precedents and rules that are cited within the larger document.
DOJ-OGR-00005597.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 384) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal precedents cited in the main document, including six court cases and three federal rules of procedure and evidence. The cases cited involve parties such as Taylor, Campagnuolo, Katz, Tellier, Tracy, and Wicker against the United States or the state of Illinois.
DOJ-OGR-00005575.jpg
This legal document is a page from a government filing arguing in favor of a limited sealing request to protect the identities of minor victims. The government asserts that this request is minimally burdensome and legally sound, citing precedents where victim privacy outweighs public access, especially for evidence not yet shared in open court. It directly refutes the defense's claim that the request violates Second Circuit law by distinguishing the cases the defense relies upon.
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues that the defense in a federal criminal case is improperly relying on civil case law regarding pseudonyms for plaintiffs. It asserts that the current case involves crime victims, who are entitled to statutory protections under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, unlike civil plaintiffs who are generally required to identify themselves. The document criticizes the defense for ignoring relevant precedent from high-profile sex abuse trials and for citing irrelevant civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00005559.jpg
This legal document is a page from a government motion arguing against publicizing the full names of four minor victims in an upcoming criminal trial. The government contends that the defense has not shown a specific need for this disclosure, and that the court should prioritize the victims' privacy and dignity. The motion cites several legal precedents that support protecting witnesses' identities, especially when safety and privacy are concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00005400.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no absolute right for an accused person to know a witness's true name and address, citing various legal precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It emphasizes the strong public interest in protecting the identities of victims, particularly in sex abuse cases, to ensure their dignity, privacy, and safety, and to encourage future victims to report crimes. The document provides multiple examples of cases where courts have permitted victims, including minors, to testify using pseudonyms or partial names.
DOJ-OGR-00005368.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 22, 2021. It contains a series of voir dire questions for potential jurors, designed to uncover biases related to past experiences with crime, legal disputes with government entities like the U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, or NYPD, and preconceived notions about law enforcement witnesses. The document also informs jurors that they will hear testimony about evidence obtained from searches that the Court has deemed legal.
DOJ-OGR-00005332.jpg
This document is page 10 of a juror questionnaire from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. The questionnaire asks potential jurors to disclose any personal acquaintance or dealings with key individuals involved in the case, including the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, the prosecution team, the defense team, and the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The purpose is to identify potential biases that could prevent a juror from being fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00005318.jpg
This document is a transcript of Judge Alison Nathan's preliminary remarks to potential jurors in the case of United States v. Maxwell, filed on October 22, 2021. The judge welcomes the jury pool to the Southern District of New York and outlines the two-phase jury selection process, which includes filling out a questionnaire and potential in-person questioning starting in mid-November.
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing from April 5, 2021, discusses the legal standard for obtaining documents via a subpoena under Rule 17(c). It heavily references the precedent set in 'United States v. Nixon', emphasizing that a request for documents must be made in good faith, be specific, and not constitute a general 'fishing expedition'. The document argues that courts require a stringent showing that the requested materials are relevant, admissible, and specifically identified, rather than just potentially useful to a case.
DOJ-OGR-00002678.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a court filing dated February 4, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists legal precedents (cases), statutes, and rules relied upon in the main document. Key statutes cited include 18 U.S.C. § 2421, 2422, and 2423, which relate to the transportation of individuals for illegal sexual activity (Mann Act) and sexual exploitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00002671.jpg
This legal document argues that the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 is not applicable to Counts Three and Four of an indictment. The reasoning provided is that the relevant offenses, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and § 2422(a), are crimes of intent and do not require sexual abuse, physical abuse, or kidnapping as an essential element. The document cites case law, including *United States v. Broxmeyer* and *Bridges*, to support the claim that the nature of the offense, not the specific facts alleged in the indictment, determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002668.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes the precedent set by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Coutentos. The analysis distinguishes between the offenses of 'production' and 'possession' of child pornography, arguing that only the former inherently involves sexual abuse as an element and is thus subject to § 3283. The document asserts that courts must look to the elements of an offense, not the specific facts of a case, to determine if charges are time-barred.
DOJ-OGR-00002618.jpg
This document is page 6 of a 7-page legal agreement, filed on February 4, 2008, between Epstein and the United States. In this section, Epstein formally waives his constitutional rights to a speedy trial (Sixth Amendment) and to an indictment by a grand jury (Fifth Amendment). This waiver is a condition for the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to defer his prosecution, with the understanding that any breach of the agreement by Epstein would allow the government to prosecute him for any federal offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00005862.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents the prosecution's (Government's) argument that using the term "victim" to refer to witnesses is not prejudicial to the defendant's rights. The argument is supported by citing numerous legal precedents from various U.S. courts which have previously ruled on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00005828.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The section titled "Applicable Law" argues that the Government is permitted to introduce evidence of acts committed in furtherance of a charged conspiracy. Citing multiple legal precedents, the document asserts that such acts are not considered 'other' acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), but are rather direct evidence of the conspiracy itself and are therefore admissible at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005811.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio in a criminal case. The document outlines Dr. Rocchio's intended opinions on how grooming facilitates sexual abuse and why victims often delay disclosing trauma, asserting these opinions are reliable and supported by psychological literature. It distinguishes the defendant's alleged actions from 'grooming by proxy' and cites academic research to bolster the validity of the expert's claims about delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00005777.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists two legal cases, 'Old Chief v. United States' (1997) and 'United States v. Salim' (2002), as well as three Federal Rules of Evidence (401, 403, 404). These authorities are cited to support arguments made elsewhere in the full legal document.
DOJ-OGR-00005762.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing to exclude evidence of an alleged rape committed by Mr. Epstein from the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The argument posits that such evidence is not part of the charged conspiracy (which is limited to securing "sexualized massages"), is highly inflammatory and unduly prejudicial, and would confuse the jury, leading to a conviction on an improper emotional basis. The document cites several legal precedents to support the exclusion of this evidence under Rule 403.
DOJ-OGR-00005761.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument to exclude testimony about Mr. Epstein allegedly raping 'Accuser-1' from Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence is irrelevant to the specific charges against Maxwell and that its potential for creating unfair prejudice against her substantially outweighs any probative value, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
DOJ-OGR-00005760.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on October 29, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to exclude any testimony related to an alleged rape of 'Accuser-1' by Jeffrey Epstein. The motion argues that such testimony is irrelevant and prejudicial because the indictment against Maxwell does not include charges of rape, and the accuser has never implicated Maxwell in the alleged rape. The defense contends that admitting this evidence would violate Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005749.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists legal precedents, including numerous 'United States v.' cases from various circuit courts, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The table indicates the page numbers within the parent document where each authority is cited.
DOJ-OGR-00005743.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 6 of 8 from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for challenging the admissibility of identification testimony, citing several precedents like Raheem v. Kelly and Simmons v. United States. The text explains the two-part inquiry courts must use to determine if a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification is still independently reliable based on factors established in Neil v. Biggers.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity