S.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00019794.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, covering March 22-24, 2021. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Maxwell's third motion for bail and Maxwell subsequently filing a Notice of Appeal. Additionally, a significant order was issued regarding a defense subpoena directed at a law firm representing alleged victims, setting protocols for victim notification and filing objections to the subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00019780.jpg
This is a court docket log from the Ghislaine Maxwell case covering July 27-30, 2020. It details the dispute and subsequent ruling on a Protective Order where Maxwell sought to publicly reference alleged victims who had previously spoken to the media about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison Nathan ruled in favor of the Government, adopting their proposed protective order to restrict the public identification of victims and witnesses to protect their privacy and safety.
DOJ-OGR-00019762.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58), covering entries from December 18 to December 28, 2020. It details the legal proceedings surrounding Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, including the Government's opposition, Maxwell's reply, and Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders approving specific redactions to protect third-party privacy. The page concludes with an entry on December 28, 2020, where the Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00019754.jpg
This document is a court docket page from the Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58) criminal proceedings, specifically covering July 27-30, 2020. It details the legal arguments and subsequent court order regarding a 'Protective Order' governing confidential materials. Judge Alison Nathan ruled against Maxwell's request to publicly reference alleged victims who had previously spoken publicly, citing a need to protect witness privacy and the integrity of the criminal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
This document is a docket summary from a legal case involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It details a series of court filings and orders from December 2020 concerning Maxwell's renewed motion for bail and the redaction of related documents. The court applies a three-part test from the Second Circuit case *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga* to approve proposed redactions from both the defense and the government, ultimately culminating in a December 28, 2020 order denying Maxwell's motion for release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00019725.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet and memorandum opinion from July 2020 regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the legal dispute over a protective order, specifically regarding Maxwell's ability to publicly name alleged victims and witnesses. Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled in favor of the Government, adopting their proposed protective order to restrict Maxwell from referencing alleged victims, citing the need to protect their privacy and safety despite previous public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00019702.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 21-58) covering entries between July 27 and July 30, 2020, regarding *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. Key entries include a dispute over the terms of a Protective Order, specifically regarding Maxwell's ability to publicly reference alleged victims who have previously spoken publicly about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order siding with the Government to restrict Maxwell from publicly referencing these victims/witnesses to protect their privacy and safety.
DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
DOJ-OGR-00010478.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the harsh conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered a mitigating factor for sentencing. It cites multiple precedents from the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) to support the claim that the pandemic, with its associated lockdowns and health risks, has made prison time significantly more punitive than under normal circumstances. The argument is made in the context of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to warrant a downward variance in her sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010407.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal filing (Doc 657) from April 2022 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The court is rejecting the Defendant's arguments that pre-indictment delay caused a prejudicial loss of evidence, specifically noting the Defendant failed to explain the loss of government property records, proof of Epstein's residency, or flight manifests delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's New York office. The court also dismisses arguments regarding deceased potential witnesses as vague assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a Defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution. The prosecution asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the high legal standard for proving prejudice, citing case law. The Defendant's claims are based on the loss of documentary evidence (flight, financial, phone, and property records related to Epstein) and the deaths of four potential witnesses (architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham).
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010372.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, outlines the Second Circuit's legal framework for determining whether multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy or distinct conspiracies, thereby implicating double jeopardy concerns. It details the eight 'Korfant factors' used in this analysis and describes the burden-shifting framework where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous showing of a single conspiracy, after which the burden shifts to the Government to prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
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-00010344.jpg
This legal document details the court's analysis of contradictions in Juror 50's statements and actions regarding his past sexual abuse. The Defendant argues that the juror's claim of reluctance to disclose his abuse is undermined by his post-trial media interviews and a social media comment to witness Annie Farmer. In response to the Court's questioning, Juror 50 explained that he did not believe his family or friends would find out about these public disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00010310.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 649) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on March 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by lying on a questionnaire about his own history of sexual abuse, which the defense argues closely paralleled the abuse described by victims at the trial. The filing highlights that the juror was abused by a familiar person (his stepbrother), mirroring the allegations against Epstein and Maxwell, and argues he would have been struck for cause had he been honest.
DOJ-OGR-00010299.jpg
This legal document argues that a juror, identified as Juror 50, should not be found to lack credibility for an inaccurate answer on a jury questionnaire. The author contends the juror's response was an honest mistake based on a reasonable interpretation of the question regarding his 'former stepbrother' and was not a deliberate attempt to get on the jury. The document cites legal precedents to support the idea that a fair, not perfect, trial is what is required, and an honest juror mistake does not invalidate the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00010281.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government's consistent theory during trial was that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein engaged in a single, overarching criminal conspiracy, not multiple separate ones. The filing cites the government's own arguments to the jury, which emphasized a 'common playbook' used against four accusers, to contend that the government's current position is a contradictory, 'after-the-fact attempt' to preserve convictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010269.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists various legal precedents (cases) and statutes that are cited in the main body of the legal document. The cited authorities primarily consist of federal cases, many from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal and New York state statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009844.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. It discusses the procedural handling of 'Juror 50' regarding a potential hearing about false statements on a jury questionnaire concerning sexual assault history. The Government argues that Juror 50 should be allowed to see his questionnaire before testifying to consult with counsel about Fifth Amendment rights, but agrees with the defense that the juror should not intervene in defining the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009838.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues against the necessity of a hearing based on an anonymous juror's report of misconduct. It cites legal precedents, including United States v. Stewart and United States v. Guzman Loera, to establish that a high standard of "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence" is required, which anonymous tips do not meet. The document details the Guzman Loera case as an example where similar allegations of jurors being exposed to prejudicial media did not result in an evidentiary hearing, reinforcing the argument that the current situation does not warrant one either.
DOJ-OGR-00009832.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrowly tailored questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and is within the Court's discretion, citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and district courts to support its position. The filing opposes the defendant's request for 'pre-hearing discovery' and argues against calling other jurors as witnesses.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity