| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-04-10 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Pizarro. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2018-04-10 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). | S.D.N.Y. | View |
This legal document is a portion of the prosecution's (the Government's) argument against a defendant's motion to sever perjury counts from other charges. The Government contends that a full re-litigation of a prior defamation action is not necessary and that any potential for 'spillover prejudice' can be managed through stipulations, using a pseudonym for a witness (Giuffre), and providing limiting instructions to the jury. The document cites several legal precedents to support the argument that juries are presumed to follow such instructions.
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues against the severance of counts or defendants in a criminal case by citing numerous legal precedents. The text establishes that defendants have a 'heavy burden' to show 'substantial prejudice' to justify separate trials, and that courts generally favor joint trials for efficiency, leaving the decision to the district court's discretion.
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, discusses the legal standard for challenging an affidavit based on alleged omissions of fact. It cites numerous precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York, to argue that a motion to suppress evidence should be denied unless the omissions were intentional, deliberate, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The document emphasizes that this is a high standard to meet, as courts recognize that all affidavits will inevitably omit some facts that may seem significant in retrospect.
This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
This document is a page from an academic paper (Page 298) discussing moral psychology, specifically 'Attention to Motives' and 'Altruism Without Prospect of Reciprocation.' It cites various studies, including a 2014 paper by 'Rand & Epstein,' which is likely the reason for its inclusion in the House Oversight investigation files (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015510). The text uses the heroic death of Professor Liviu Librescu at Virginia Tech as an example of altruistic behavior.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity