Josephberg
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00020987.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details post-conviction proceedings in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The Defendant, convicted on three conspiracy counts related to a conspiracy with Epstein, argued the counts were multiplicitous and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Government conceded that Counts One and Three were multiplicitous, and the Court agreed not to impose judgment on Count One and also granted the Defendant's motion to not enter judgment on Count Five, finding it multiplicitous with Count Three.
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code ยง 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
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-00010370.jpg
This legal document is a court order from April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. Following a jury conviction on three conspiracy counts, the defendant argued that the counts were multiplicitous and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court agrees that Counts One and Five are multiplicitous with Count Three and therefore grants the defendant's motion to not enter judgment on those two counts.
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-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity