Lebedev
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00000024.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claims of trial prejudice and unreasonable sentencing. It asserts that evidence of her criminal conduct in New Mexico was properly included and did not cause 'substantial prejudice,' as her defense received related interview notes from a victim named Jane well before trial. The document also defends Maxwell's 240-month sentence as procedurally reasonable, countering her argument that the District Court erred in its application of sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order (Document 657) filed on April 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and 'prejudicial variance' or 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Second Circuit cases) to define the standards for determining if a defendant was convicted of a crime different from the one charged in the indictment. The Court denies the Defendant's motion on this basis.
DOJ-OGR-00021900.jpg
This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.
DOJ-OGR-00021817.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
This legal document, page 75 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, presents arguments defending the conviction of Maxwell. It counters Maxwell's claims by stating the jury's verdict was plausible and not based on speculation, and that there was no variance between the indictment and the trial proof regarding events in New Mexico. The document asserts Maxwell had 'fair and adequate notice' of the charges, citing the government's disclosure of an interview with the victim, Jane, weeks before the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
This legal document, page 70 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the applicable law regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' in criminal indictments. It cites several precedents, including United States v. Khalupsky and United States v. D'Amelio, to define the conditions under which trial evidence or jury instructions improperly alter the original charges brought by a grand jury. The document distinguishes between a constructive amendment, which modifies the essential elements of the offense, and a variance, where the indictment's terms are unchanged but the evidence proves different facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant was not legally prejudiced regarding witness testimony. It outlines that the defense received notes on witness Jane more than three weeks before trial and that the court's decision to permit witness Kate to testify came almost two weeks after notes were received, providing ample time for preparation. The filing cites legal precedents to assert that the court did not err in its handling of limiting instructions and that any failure to request them was the defendant's own, not a basis for a prejudice claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text contains legal analysis rejecting the defendant's argument that the Court's response to a jury note constructively amended the indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Jones, Lebedev, Muraca) to support the Court's discretion in handling jury inquiries and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009575.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes the defendant's argument that a constructive amendment occurred during trial. The prosecution argues that Jane's testimony about events in New Mexico was permissibly used to prove the defendant's intent for abuse to occur in New York. The document asserts that the jury was not erroneously convicted on a theory of guilt for crimes in New Mexico, as this was not pursued by the Government or allowed by jury instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009568.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text presents legal arguments defining the differences between 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' regarding indictments. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Lebedev, Gross, McGinn, D'Amelio) to argue that minor factual divergences at trial do not invalidate a conviction as long as the 'core of criminality' remains the same.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity