Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Brathwaite

Person
Mentions
10
Relationships
1
Events
1
Documents
5
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
1 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Manson
Legal representative
6
2
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
1977-01-01 Legal case Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court View

DOJ-OGR-00005850.jpg

This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 397) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the admissibility of witness identification testimony, citing precedents such as *Neil v. Biggers* and *United States v. Simmons* to argue that even suggestive identification procedures do not require suppression if the identification is independently reliable based on the totality of circumstances. The page bears a Department of Justice footer stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005850).

Legal filing / court document (motion or brief)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005742.jpg

This document is a legal argument from a court filing, dated October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The defense argues that a photographic identification of Ms. Maxwell conducted on June 23, 2021, was suggestive and tainted, and therefore should be suppressed by the Court. The argument cites several U.S. Supreme Court cases to support the claim that the procedure violated the defendant's right to due process.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005740.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 seven U.S. court cases, dating from 1967 to 2012, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated legal brief. The cases are from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005849.jpg

This document is a legal document related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It discusses the admissibility of identification evidence and cites several legal precedents related to eyewitness identification and due process.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search