Sampson
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Sampson was decided by the 2d Circuit. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2011-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Court case: United States v. Sampson | D. Mass. | View |
| 2011-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151 | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000141.tif
This legal document discusses perjury charges against Maxwell, concluding that they are legally tenable but should be severed and tried separately from Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice. It references legal precedents and argues that Maxwell's statements in a civil case about sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations could have led to the discovery of other evidence or influenced the factfinder, thus supporting the perjury charges.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00000015.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) affirming a District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on timeliness. The court rejects Maxwell's arguments regarding the statute of limitations and the applicability of the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, ruling that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents including Weingarten v. United States and United States v. Sampson.
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) claim that one of the jurors, Juror 50, was biased. The defendant cites other legal cases (Afshar, Burton) to support the claim, but the court distinguishes the facts and finds Juror 50 was not biased, noting his credible testimony about his past abuse. The court also dismisses the argument that Juror 50's post-trial interviews and social media activity are evidence of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00020974.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) challenge to the impartiality of a juror, Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines that his inadvertent nondisclosure about past sexual abuse does not constitute deliberate lying to be selected for the jury. The court rejects the defendant's argument that similarities between the juror's personal history and the case issues warrant a finding of implied bias, distinguishing this situation from other legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00020782.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021. The court concludes that perjury charges against the defendant, Maxwell, are legally tenable and can be presented to a jury. However, the court rules that these perjury charges must be severed and tried separately from the Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice to the defendant, citing potential issues with admitting evidence of other acts and the risk of disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00002287.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text argues legal standards for the 'Severance of Offenses,' citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 and various precedents regarding when charges should be tried separately to avoid prejudice to the defendant. It lists numerous case citations including U.S. v. Mitan, U.S. v. Bradford, and U.S. v. Burke to support the argument that misjoined counts must be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00002287(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'Severance of Offenses' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing various precedents to argue that counts should be severed if joinder prejudices the defendant. It discusses the legal standards for 'misjoinder' and 'substantial prejudice' required to grant a motion to sever.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002281(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities page (Page 3 of 19) from a court filing dated January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists twenty-one legal precedents (cases) cited in the brief, primarily from the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, covering dates from 1964 to 2011. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002281.
DOJ-OGR-00021891.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal ruling filed on December 2, 2024 (Case 22-1426), likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirms the District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of her indictment. The court rules that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and that the 2003 amendment to this statute was correctly applied retroactively.
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021748.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and statutes cited within the main document, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed primarily involve the United States as a party against various individuals and corporations in different federal courts.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009041.jpg
This legal document discusses the critical issue of juror impartiality and memory reliability in court proceedings. It references the Sampson v. United States case, where a new penalty-phase hearing was ordered due to a juror's undisclosed personal experiences as a crime victim, drawing parallels to concerns about Juror No. 50's ability to fairly evaluate evidence in the current case. The document also incorporates expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding the confidence and accuracy of memories, emphasizing the potential for bias when jurors' personal experiences align with case details.
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009038.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from February 24, 2022, defines and analyzes the concept of "implied bias" as a basis for challenging potential jurors. It cites numerous legal precedents to explain that implied bias is presumed by law, regardless of a juror's stated impartiality, especially when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated. The document provides examples from past cases, such as jurors who were victims of crimes similar to those in the case they were hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00010354.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell) challenge to the impartiality of Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines he did not deliberately lie to be selected, distinguishing his situation from a precedent case (Sampson) involving extensive dishonesty. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that Juror 50 was biased due to similarities between his personal history of sexual abuse and the trial's subject matter, noting the defendant's nuanced argument for implied or inferred bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010317.jpg
This legal document analyzes the conduct of Juror 50 during and after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It highlights Juror 50's public revelation of his jury service on social media and his multiple false statements to the Court regarding his impartiality and willingness to follow instructions. The document argues that these actions demonstrate Juror 50's bias and inability to serve as an unbiased juror, providing grounds for a cause challenge.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity