Joseph
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-01-01 | Legal case | The legal case of United States v. Joseph, in which the Second Circuit reversed a conviction for ... | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal case | The legal case of United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2008), where the Second Circuit r... | Second Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016458.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, in which an attorney argues that the evidence against an individual named Ghislaine is insufficient to prove criminal enticement. The attorney contends that her role in arranging travel was merely a 'ministerial function,' akin to a travel agent, and did not involve the persuasion or inducement required by the statute. To support this claim, the attorney cites the 2008 Second Circuit case, United States v. Joseph, as a legal precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00013833.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, where an attorney argues that their client, Ghislaine, should not be convicted of enticement. The attorney contends that her act of arranging travel was merely a 'ministerial function,' akin to a travel agent's work, and lacked the necessary element of persuasion or inducement required by the statute. The argument is supported by citing the 2008 Second Circuit precedent in 'United States v. Joseph'.
DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues against the defendant's claim regarding expert testimony in a sex trafficking case. It cites Judge Engelmayer's reasoning from another case (United States v. Randall) to assert that statistical error rates are an 'unusually poor fit' for evaluating qualitative research on trauma and grooming. The document concludes that the proper way to challenge the expert's (Dr. Rocchio's) findings is through cross-examination before a jury, not by deeming them irrelevant under a Daubert analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
This document is a legal filing that refutes the defense's arguments against the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The author argues that the defense misinterprets legal precedent, specifically the Raymond case, and that Dr. Rocchio's testimony, based on qualitative social science, is valid under the standards established by cases like Daubert and United States v. Ferguson. The filing defends the expert's methodology against claims that it is unreliable, uncorroborated, and lacks statistical precision.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity