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-00010311.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 was incapable of being impartial due to his own past trauma of childhood sexual abuse, which was highly similar to that of the victims in the case. The filing cites multiple legal precedents where jurors were dismissed or new trials were granted for failing to disclose such biasing personal experiences. The document further contends that Juror 50's decision to speak to the international press after the trial to 'tell his story' demonstrates his deep identification with the victims and confirms his bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009729.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that defines and discusses the concept of "implied bias" in the context of jury selection. It cites several legal precedents (Torres, Haynes, Sampson, etc.) to explain that implied bias is presumed by law and is determined by the juror's circumstances, not their stated ability to be impartial. The text highlights that bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated, providing examples from cases involving murder and burglary.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00003101.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues against the severance of counts or defendants in a criminal case by citing numerous legal precedents. The text establishes that defendants have a 'heavy burden' to show 'substantial prejudice' to justify separate trials, and that courts generally favor joint trials for efficiency, leaving the decision to the district court's discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00003081.jpg
This document is page 147 of a court filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal analysis regarding perjury charges, specifically discussing the legal standard for 'fundamental ambiguity' in questioning. The text cites various precedents to argue that a perjury count stands unless a question is so ambiguous that people of ordinary intellect cannot agree on its meaning, noting that simple amenability to multiple meanings is not a sufficient defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002956.jpg
This document is page xxi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal precedents in the format 'United States v. [Defendant]'. Each entry includes the case citation and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00005901.jpg
This document is a page from an academic paper (authored by S. Craven et al.) filed as an exhibit (Document 397-1) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It details psychological and criminological models of sexual offending and grooming, specifically discussing 'Hall and Hirschman’s Quadripartite Model,' 'Finkelhor’s Pre-condition Model,' and 'Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model.' The text analyzes the mechanics of offender motivation, vulnerability factors, and the creation of opportunities to offend.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity