Tramunti
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1975-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087 | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020821.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying motions filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The court denies her motion for a bill of particulars, which sought more specific dates for alleged sex trafficking crimes, ruling that the indictment's four-year timeframe (2001-2004) is sufficient. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to compel immediate disclosure of a Minor Victim's prior statements, finding the current disclosure schedule adequate.
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-00020778.jpg
This legal document is a court filing addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss charges from an indictment, specifically the Mann Act counts, arguing they lack specificity. The Court denies the motion, concluding that the S1 superseding indictment is sufficiently clear under established legal precedent, which only requires tracking the statutory language and providing the time and place in approximate terms. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is too vague regarding time periods, conduct described, and the identification of victims.
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-00002958.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204) filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous legal cases, primarily with the United States as the plaintiff, along with their full legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited are from various federal courts and span several decades, serving as legal precedent for the arguments made in the filing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity