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-00000044.tif
This document outlines the procedural background of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from September 2007, where he agreed to plead guilty to state charges in Florida and serve an eighteen-month sentence, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing not to prosecute him for offenses from 2001-2007 and not to charge potential co-conspirators. It also highlights a legal inconsistency regarding the enforceability of such agreements across different circuit courts, referencing a motion to dismiss by Maxwell that would have been granted under different circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000043.tif
This document is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, seeking review of a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It details the procedural history of her case, including the Second Circuit's opinion issued on September 17, 2024, and the denial of her motion for en banc review on November 25, 2024. The core of her appeal rests on the argument that the United States prosecuted her as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, despite a prior non-prosecution agreement that allegedly covered Epstein's co-conspirators.
DOJ-OGR-00000041.tif
This document is a 'Table of Authorities—Continued' listing various legal cases, statutes, and rules. It includes multiple 'United States v. Maxwell' cases, one from 2024 and another from 2021, along with other cases like 'United States v. McDowell', 'United States v. O’Doherty', 'United States v. Rubbo', 'United States v. Transfiguracion', 'United States v. Van Thournout', 'United States v. Warner', and 'United States v. Williams', citing their legal references and page numbers within the larger document. It also lists relevant statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)) and a rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b)).
DOJ-OGR-00023138.tif
This document details efforts by Acosta to revise the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with language concerning monetary damages for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, which was ultimately rejected by the defense. It highlights disagreements and frustrations between prosecutors and defense counsel regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Section 2255 provision, particularly concerning victim notification and Epstein's alleged delays in his guilty plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023353.tif
This document is an addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, clarifying provisions related to the selection and payment of an attorney representative for victims. It outlines the United States' right to assign an independent third-party for this role, with both the US and Epstein retaining objection rights, and specifies Epstein's obligation to pay the attorney's fees at customary hourly rates, excluding costs for contested litigation against him.
DOJ-OGR-00023346.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal agreement where Epstein asserts and certifies his understanding of its terms. He acknowledges the right to a speedy trial but agrees to waive certain rights regarding prosecution delays and the method of charging (information instead of grand jury indictment) if a prosecution arises from a grand jury investigation. The agreement allows the United States to terminate it and prosecute Epstein or others for federal offenses if conditions are breached.
DOJ-OGR-00023342.tif
This document outlines an agreement to defer federal prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, contingent on his compliance with specific conditions and actions with the State Attorney's Office. The agreement, authorized by R. Alexander Acosta, states that federal prosecution will be deferred in favor of state prosecution, and if Epstein fulfills all terms, federal charges will be dismissed; however, if he violates the agreement, federal prosecution may be initiated.
DOJ-OGR-00023337.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal agreement or plea agreement involving Epstein. It details conditions of his plea, including waiving rights to challenge information and appeal, and not contesting the jurisdiction or victim status of minors. The agreement outlines the United States' obligations to provide a victim list and seek a guardian ad litem, and sets dates for Epstein's sentencing (September 28, 2007) and commencement of sentence (October 15, 2007).
DOJ-OGR-00028683.jpg
This document details the inspection results for Jeffrey Edward Epstein at Newark International Airport on November 16, 2010. He was admitted as a U.S. Citizen but was referred to baggage inspection by a CBP Officer. The record includes various internal identifiers and timestamps related to the entry process.
DOJ-OGR-00018346.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a court ruling regarding the admissibility of photographic evidence in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court decides to admit photos of Jeffrey Epstein's apartment and massage room to corroborate the testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. The admission of photos of the massage room is conditional upon the redaction of pictures on the wall.
DOJ-OGR-00018344.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, presenting an argument for the admissibility of photographs taken long after the events in question. It cites legal precedents, including United States v. Causey (2014) and United States v. Smith (2020), to support the claim that such photos are relevant if they depict enduring scenes like buildings. The document also notes the defense's counter-argument regarding relevance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00015144.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a court filing from August 11, 2025, discusses the rule of secrecy for grand jury matters as established in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). It outlines the specific, narrow exceptions that permit disclosure to government personnel, other grand juries, and law enforcement, or by court order for judicial proceedings and various government investigations. The document then introduces the 'Special Circumstances' Doctrine, developed by the Second Circuit, which allows for disclosure in cases of unusual historical or public interest, citing several precedent cases.
DOJ-OGR-00015049.jpg
This document is a court order directing the Government to file a memorandum of law and specific Maxwell grand jury materials by July 29, 2025. The memorandum must address factors related to its application, including counsel's review of transcripts and victim notification, and be filed in both redacted and unredacted forms. Additionally, the Government is ordered to submit various Maxwell grand jury transcripts and related exhibits under seal to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial opinion concerning an appeal by a defendant named Maxwell. The court is reviewing the District Court's decision to deny Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The basis for Maxwell's motion was that 'Juror 50' failed to accurately answer questions on a jury questionnaire about a personal history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell argues deprived her of a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014863.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell, citing legal precedent (Annabi) and statutes (28 U.S.C. § 547 and § 515) to support its position on prosecutorial jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00014856.jpg
This document page discusses the legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing Epstein's plea agreement and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that protected potential co-conspirators. It also introduces the indictment against Maxwell, outlining the specific counts and statutes related to conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00014794.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 22, 2022, is a transcript of a judge's ruling regarding a sentencing calculation. The judge finds that two minor victims, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, were trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein and should be considered for sentencing purposes, even though they were not named in the indictment. Citing precedent from the Second Circuit, the judge overrules the defendant's objection and decides to treat the conduct against these two victims as additional counts of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014787.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on August 22, 2022. A judge is overruling an objection from the defense concerning a sentencing enhancement for a defendant convicted of a sex crime. The judge asserts that the clear text of the Sentencing Guidelines is unambiguous and binding, and cannot be overridden by background commentary from the Sentencing Commission or scattered legislative history, which the judge deems unreliable.
DOJ-OGR-00014784.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding, filed on August 22, 2022, discussing the sentencing of a defendant for a conspiracy of sexual abuse. The central issue is determining whether the 2003 or the harsher 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, which hinges on whether the crime continued past November 1, 2004. The government's argument relies on the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, whom the judge and jury found to be a credible witness.
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge addresses objections from the defense regarding the application of the 2003 versus 2004 guidelines and an objection from the government that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. The judge explains the legal reasoning, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and the precedent set in Peugh v. United States, to determine which guidelines are applicable.
DOJ-OGR-00008661.jpg
This document is page 123 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Jury Instruction No. 31 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the charge of Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The text explains the legal definition of conspiracy as a 'criminal partnership' and clarifies that a defendant can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crime was not committed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity