Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00009726.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standards for determining juror bias based on false or misleading answers during voir dire. It cites precedents from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, such as McDonough, Langford, and Clark v. United States. The key argument presented is that a juror who intentionally lies to be selected is not a legitimate juror, and such dishonesty can be grounds for a new trial, outlining the specific tests used in the Second Circuit to prove such bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00009598.jpg
This legal document outlines the Second Circuit's stringent standard for pre-indictment delay, which requires a defendant to prove both improper government purpose and serious, actual prejudice to their defense. It cites numerous legal precedents to emphasize the heavy burden on the defendant and to define substantial prejudice, noting that the mere loss of evidence or witnesses is typically insufficient. The document establishes that claims of pre-indictment delay are rarely successful.
DOJ-OGR-00009555.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court is rejecting the Defense's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 (regarding juror competency as a witness) violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation. The judge rules that Juror 50 was a factfinder, not a witness against the defendant, and cites Supreme Court precedents (Crawford, Tanner) to uphold the limitations on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009554.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text presents the Government's argument against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations that 'Juror 50' made false statements during voir dire. The filing cites *Warger v. Shauers* and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences (unless 'extraneous') cannot be used to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009553.jpg
This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses a motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50' allegedly failing to disclose information (specifically regarding childhood sexual abuse) during voir dire. The text outlines the legal standards for such a motion, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*.
DOJ-OGR-00009519.jpg
This document is the final page (page 14) of a legal letter dated March 7, 2013, sent by attorney Paul Shechtman of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III. The text concludes an argument regarding sentencing, specifically utilizing a footnote citing 'Gall v. United States' to argue that non-incarcerative (probationary) sentences still constitute a significant restriction of liberty. The document was originally filed in 2013 but was later submitted as Exhibit A-5943 in the 2022 Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN).
DOJ-OGR-00009481.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022. An unidentified speaker is arguing about whether the actions of the 'Brune firm' on May 12, 2011, constituted a deliberate 'strategic judgment' or were simply 'inattention or neglect.' The speaker references legal definitions and precedents from Justice Stevens, the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court to support their argument.
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-00003072.jpg
This legal document argues that a district court's supervisory authority to suppress evidence is limited and should only be used when there is a clear violation of constitutional, statutory, or procedural law. Citing multiple legal precedents, the author contends that this power must be 'sparingly exercised' and that the defendant in this case has not established such a violation, and is therefore not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the government's actions.
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically outlining the applicable law concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It defines and distinguishes between procedural and substantive due process by citing several court cases, including Martinez v. McAleenan and United States v. Salerno. The text highlights the two-step analysis for procedural due process and notes the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand the concept of substantive due process, as stated in Washington v. Glucksberg.
DOJ-OGR-00003055.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that certain evidence (depositions from April and July 2016) would have been 'inevitably discovered' regardless of protective order modifications. A significant footnote details Judge Preska's refusal in the related civil case to keep Maxwell's testimony sealed, specifically highlighting testimony where Maxwell denied giving massages to Jeffrey Epstein or 'Minor Victim-2,' which forms the basis of perjury charges (Count Six).
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, that discusses the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. It cites numerous federal court cases, including from the Supreme Court, to argue that suppressing evidence is a 'last resort' intended to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. The text emphasizes the 'good-faith' exception, particularly when law enforcement acts in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, suggesting that suppression is generally not warranted in such cases.
DOJ-OGR-00003046.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, which presents an argument against the defendant Maxwell's claim to Fourth Amendment privacy for her deposition transcripts. The text refutes Maxwell's argument by distinguishing her case from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in *Carpenter*, which concerned the privacy of cell phone location data and surveillance, not deposition testimony given in a civil suit. The document asserts that Maxwell's situation does not fall under the specific privacy protections established in *Carpenter*.
DOJ-OGR-00003044.jpg
This legal document page outlines the Fourth Amendment's third-party doctrine, which generally holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It cites key Supreme Court cases like Miller and Smith to support this doctrine, while also discussing the narrow exception for cell site location information established in the Carpenter case. The document concludes by emphasizing that a defendant bears the burden of proving, through sworn evidence, that their own rights were violated to have standing to challenge a search.
DOJ-OGR-00003013.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the Defendant failed to prove the Indictment was delayed for an improper purpose. The text discusses the legal standards for pre-indictment delay, citing Supreme Court and Circuit precedents, and rejects the Defendant's request for a 'balancing test' regarding prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00003011.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing by the prosecution (The Government) arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that the defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution is speculative, as her assertions about diminished witness memories and lost access to her own emails, phone, and travel records from 1994-1997 lack proof of their helpfulness or materiality. The document cites legal precedents (Harrison and Dornau) to support the position that such speculative claims are insufficient grounds for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00003001.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text contains legal arguments regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3283, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or 'fact-based approach' applies to defining offenses involving sexual abuse. The prosecution argues that the defendant's interpretation would contradict Congress's intent to broadly prosecute crimes against children.
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument against a defendant's motion. The author contends that Section 3283, concerning sexual abuse offenses, should be interpreted broadly, citing precedents like 'Vickers' and 'Schneider'. The document argues that the defendant's reliance on the 'essential ingredients' test from 'Bridges v. United States' is misplaced because that case dealt with a different, more narrowly drafted statute (the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) and is therefore inapplicable.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002996.jpg
This document is page 35 (pacer page 62) of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is a legal analysis rejecting Maxwell's arguments to dismiss the indictment based on the statute of limitations. The court distinguishes the precedents cited by Maxwell (specifically Thom v. Ashcroft and Toussie v. United States), arguing that they do not prevent the retroactive application of the relevant statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
This page is from a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The text asserts that the Ex Post Facto Clause is not violated because the limitations period had not expired for Counts One through Four when it was extended in 2003. Footnotes address the specific ages of Minor Victims 1, 2, and 3 in relation to the 2003 extension and discuss the 'Landgraf' Supreme Court precedent regarding legislative retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00004797.jpg
This is page 13 of a court filing (Doc 307) from the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 25, 2021. The text denies Maxwell's request to suppress evidence, stating she failed to prove a due process violation or justify the use of the Court's supervisory authority. The Court argues that the Government's omission of information regarding past communications with BSF (Boies Schiller Flexner) does not constitute the 'extreme misconduct' or 'willful disobedience of law' required for suppression.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity