Kidd
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-01 | Court order | An order was issued in United States v. Kidd, permitting minor victims to testify under pseudonyms. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Kidd. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal proceeding | In the case United States v. Kidd, the Government gave notice of expert testimony on "the psychol... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
EFTA00033638.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report for MCC New York dated July 23, 2019, covering events from July 22, 2019. It details operational issues including a gang threat ('Macballers') on the 11-South unit, the failure of fire alarms and sprinkler systems requiring a 'Fire Watch,' and significant staffing shortages. The report also lists inmate movements, specifically admissions to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and releases from the facility, along with staffing overtime and leave statistics showing 9 staff members AWOL.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00003115.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a portion of a legal argument defending an indictment against a motion to dismiss. The argument asserts that using pseudonyms for minor victims and providing an approximate date range (1994-1997) for the alleged crimes is legally sound, citing precedents like Stringer, Kidd, and Stavroulakis. It further argues the defendant is not prejudiced, as the government has provided and will provide specific details, such as victim birth information and witness names, during discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00005792.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for admitting expert testimony in court. It argues that a district court has broad discretion in determining the reliability of such testimony and that it must also be relevant, concerning matters beyond the understanding of an average juror. The document cites several precedents, focusing on cases where courts admitted expert testimony on the psychological dynamics between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes, such as the 'pimp-prostitute relationship' and 'trauma bonding'.
DOJ-OGR-00005790.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 7 of document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for admitting expert testimony under the 'Daubert' framework, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and numerous precedent cases. The text explains that a court must first assess an expert's qualifications and then determine if their testimony is both relevant and reliable, detailing several criteria for establishing reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00005400.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no absolute right for an accused person to know a witness's true name and address, citing various legal precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It emphasizes the strong public interest in protecting the identities of victims, particularly in sex abuse cases, to ensure their dignity, privacy, and safety, and to encourage future victims to report crimes. The document provides multiple examples of cases where courts have permitted victims, including minors, to testify using pseudonyms or partial names.
DOJ-OGR-00005811.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio in a criminal case. The document outlines Dr. Rocchio's intended opinions on how grooming facilitates sexual abuse and why victims often delay disclosing trauma, asserting these opinions are reliable and supported by psychological literature. It distinguishes the defendant's alleged actions from 'grooming by proxy' and cites academic research to bolster the validity of the expert's claims about delayed disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity