Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been struck for cause due to bias revealed in press statements. It cites legal precedent, primarily the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough and the Second Circuit's test in United States v. Stewart, to assert that a new trial can be granted based on a juror's inaccurate voir dire response, even if the response was not deliberately dishonest. The document contends that the key is whether the juror was actually biased and whether a correct answer would have provided grounds for a challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg
This document is Page 34 of 66 from a legal filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments concerning juror misconduct and bias, citing precedents such as *United States v. Langford*, *United States v. Stewart*, and *Clark v. United States* to establish that a new trial may be warranted if a juror provides false answers during voir dire. The text emphasizes Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards for determining when a juror's dishonesty invalidates a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009033.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (Document 613) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses legal precedents regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (referenced via 'Id.' and the mention of 'Juror Payton'). The text outlines the legal standard required to obtain a new trial when a juror fails to answer voir dire questions honestly.
DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. It cites multiple legal precedents to underscore the critical importance of the voir dire process, which must provide defendants with a full and fair opportunity to uncover potential juror bias. The text establishes that ensuring an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of constitutional law and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00008969.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 604) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 17, 2022. The filing party, NACDL, argues for the importance of its perspective in the case, citing legal precedents like Skilling v. United States regarding jury selection and other cases concerning the role of amicus curiae (friends of the court). The document aims to persuade the court to consider its suggestions on ensuring juror honesty and establishing a fair framework for the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00008919.jpg
This legal document, dated February 9, 2022, from Winston & Strawn LLP, describes the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and its practice of filing amicus curiae briefs. It cites legal precedents for amicus participation and requests the Court's permission to file an amicus brief regarding a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The document notes that Counsel for the Defendant has consented, while Counsel for the DOJ has not yet responded to inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00019690.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals order dated November 9, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The court dismisses Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order due to lack of jurisdiction, denies her petition for a writ of mandamus, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*. The court cites various precedents to establish that the protective order does not fall under the 'collateral order exception' and that Maxwell failed to prove exceptional circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00019685.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Case 20-3061. The court dismisses Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of a District Court's denial to modify a protective order, ruling it lacks jurisdiction because the order is not immediately appealable. The court also declines to issue a writ of mandamus and denies Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case Guiffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019684.jpg
This is page 2 of a court order from an appellate court dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate. The document outlines the legal basis for the dismissal, citing the "final judgment rule" in criminal cases and the strict conditions required for collateral order appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019679.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order dated October 19, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order. The court rules it lacks jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order, denies her request for a writ of mandamus finding no abuse of discretion by the District Court, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*.
DOJ-OGR-00019678.jpg
This document is page 2 of an appellate court order dated October 19, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The court outlines the 'final judgment rule,' explaining that appeals generally cannot occur until after a final conviction and sentencing, and determines Maxwell's request does not meet the strict criteria for an exception (collateral order). The document cites numerous legal precedents regarding jurisdiction and finality in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019624.jpg
Page 17 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Oct 2, 2020) produced by the DOJ. The text contains legal arguments citing various precedents (Punn, Mohawk Indus., Hitchcock) to argue that appellate review should generally wait until a final judgment is entered, rather than allowing immediate interlocutory appeals, particularly regarding pre-trial discovery or evidence rulings.
DOJ-OGR-00010476.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on June 15, 2022, argues that the pre-sentence detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell at the MDC constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The filing claims her treatment is significantly harsher than that of the general prison population and was implemented under specific directives from then-Attorney General William Barr, who was intent on avoiding a repeat of the incident involving Epstein in BOP custody. The document asserts this disparate and punitive treatment was condoned by MDC supervisors and wardens.
DOJ-OGR-00010464.jpg
This document is page 17 (PDF page 18) of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the legal standards for sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), citing Supreme Court precedents like Gall and Nelson. The text argues that these statutory factors, specifically the need for just punishment and Ms. Maxwell's history, weigh heavily in favor of the proposed sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010463.jpg
This document is page 17 of a sentencing memorandum filed in June 2022. It presents character statements (Exhibits F and G) from Catherine Vaughan-Edwards and Harriet Jagger, who describe Ghislaine Maxwell as a supportive friend and express sympathy for her desire for family life. The document transitions (Exhibit H) into a legal argument citing Supreme Court precedent regarding advisory sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00010425.jpg
This legal document, part of a court case, argues against the application of the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines for a defendant whose criminal conduct is alleged to have ended 'in or about 2004'. The filing contends that applying the later, harsher guidelines would be an ex post facto violation, as the jury never made a specific factual finding that the conduct continued past the 2004 Guidelines' effective date. It further argues that having the court, rather than the jury, determine the offense end date would violate the defendant's (Ms. Maxwell's) Sixth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00010325.jpg
This legal document discusses a case where a juror was questioned under oath and the penalty of perjury. The court inquired about the juror's answers and whether they were false. The document references Federal Rule of Evidence 606, Supreme Court, and Second Circuit law.
DOJ-OGR-00010198.jpg
This document is the final page (page 14) of a legal letter dated March 7, 2013, from attorney Paul Shechtman of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III. The text concludes an argument regarding sentencing, specifically referencing *Gall v. United States* to argue that non-incarcerative sentences (probation) are still severe and restrictive. The letter is copied to Assistant US Attorneys Stanley J. Okula, Jr. and Nanette Davis.
DOJ-OGR-00010160.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker discusses the legal distinction between a deficient performance by a law firm and a deliberate strategic judgment. The speaker uses a hypothetical scenario involving the 'Brune firm' deciding to 'sandbag the Court' to argue that a conscious choice to withhold information is a strategic decision, not simply oversight or carelessness, referencing opinions from the Second Circuit and a dissent by Justice Stevens.
DOJ-OGR-00010149.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a bibliography of publications by Stephen Gillers from 1993 to 1997. The listed articles, published in various legal journals and newspapers, cover topics such as legal ethics, political controversies like Whitewater and Filegate, and the Clinton administration. The document also references a mock legal appeal based on Shakespeare's Hamlet.
DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
This document page, filed on April 6, 2012, is part of a legal analysis discussing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers, specifically referencing New York Rules and Rule 11 sanctions. It cites case law (Pennie & Edmonds, Polk County v. Dodson) to establish the standards for 'bad faith' and the role of defense counsel in an adversary system. The text concludes by framing a specific inquiry into whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011.
DOJ-OGR-00009882.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello precedents is misplaced in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, which dealt with conduct during deliberations, this case involves a juror (Juror No. 50) who gave false answers during voir dire—conduct outside the jury room—and therefore an evidentiary hearing is warranted. The document further notes that the juror has actively sought public attention, which is how his false answers became known.
DOJ-OGR-00009876.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's presence, due to alleged false answers and bias, requires a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent in 'United States v. Martinez-Salazar'. The filing asserts that the government's proposed narrow hearing would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights and argues that precedent from 'United States v. Daugerdas' supports her entitlement to a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009843.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated March 11, 2022. It discusses a dispute regarding 'Juror 50', who has requested access to his own voir dire transcript and juror questionnaire; the defense opposes this, arguing it would prejudice the investigation into the juror's conduct, while the government supports the juror's right to access a document he authored. The text also references a separate motion by The New York Times to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing from March 11, 2022, outlines the legal standards and strong judicial disfavor for post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, it explains that such inquiries threaten the finality of verdicts and the integrity of the jury system. The document also details the strict, two-part test a defendant must satisfy to obtain a new trial based on a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire, requiring proof of both dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have warranted a challenge for cause.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity