Shakur
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the case of United States v. Shakur. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001454.jpg
This legal document, page 14 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's detention order and for considering a defendant's temporary release. It cites U.S. statutes and several legal precedents, including United States v. Watkins and United States v. Scarborough, to establish that the court applies a 'deferential review' and that a defendant bears the burden of proving temporary release is necessary for their defense or for other compelling reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00001333.jpg
This legal document, page 16 of a filing dated April 12, 2021, outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention. It specifies the factors a court must consider when the government seeks detention for flight risk, as laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The document also details the 'deferential review' standard for appealing a detention order and the conditions under which a judicial officer may permit temporary release of a detained individual.
DOJ-OGR-00000925.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law dated April 1, 2021, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents like United States v. Horton and United States v. Shakur. It then begins an argument that Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i) because the 'horrific conditions' of her 'de facto solitary confinement' prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant, Mr. Epstein. It establishes that rules of evidence are relaxed in bail hearings, giving courts wide discretion, and cites legal precedent that in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a presumption for remand. The document states that the burden is on Mr. Epstein to provide evidence that he is not a danger or flight risk, while the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the Government in the criminal case against Mr. Epstein, filed on July 18, 2019. It argues that the standard rules of evidence do not apply to bail hearings and that for the specific charges involving sexual victimization of a minor, there is a legal presumption in favor of pretrial detention. The document states that while Mr. Epstein can rebut this presumption, the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he is a danger.
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrow questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and protect the integrity of jury deliberations, citing numerous legal precedents where courts have similarly controlled such inquiries. The Government also argues against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery" and calling other jurors as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00009152.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing by the U.S. Government, likely a motion or memorandum. It cites various legal precedents to establish the standards for conducting a post-verdict inquiry into potential juror misconduct. The Government argues that these standards have been met with respect to 'Juror 50' due to an inconsistency between his public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer on a juror questionnaire, and therefore consents to a hearing to determine if the juror lied.
DOJ-OGR-00019843.jpg
This document is a page from a legal memorandum of law, dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-58. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents from 'United States v. Horton' and 'United States v. Shakur'. It then begins an argument that defendant Ghislaine Maxwell should be released because her confinement conditions prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009834.jpg
This legal document discusses a dispute over whether the Court should conduct a further inquiry into 'Juror 50'. The issue arises from a discrepancy between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his 'no' answer to a related question on the juror questionnaire. The defendant argues for an inquiry to determine potential bias, while the document presents a counterargument that such an inquiry is unnecessary based on the existing record and the juror's other responses.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity