the district
LocationRelationship Network
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Announcement | The district will announce new protocols, including specific mask requirements, on the upcoming M... | the courthouse | View |
| N/A | N/A | Replenishment of the master wheels (Jury Plan) | The District | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) regarding a witness named 'Jane.' The government requests permission for Jane to leave the district to return to her family while remaining available for potential recall, while the defense raises concerns regarding the witness's exposure to media coverage of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00000330.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant accused of a years-long scheme of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. The prosecution contends that the defendant's proposed bail package is inadequate, he is a flight risk due to his wealth and private jet, and he poses a danger to the community. The document details the allegations, including that the defendant paid victims and victim-recruiters in cash in locations like New York and Palm Beach, and urges the Court to order him detained pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013282.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding a potential witness named Brian. The defense is weighing the risks of calling Brian due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister, while the prosecution notes that Brian has already left the district as he is no longer a government witness.
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 589) filed on March 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments that the Jury Plan systematically excludes African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The Court rules that factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency of people moving residences, and the use of voter registration lists do not constitute constitutional violations under the Sixth or Fifth Amendments.
DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 189) in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC), filed on March 24, 2021. The text discusses a legal dispute regarding jury selection venues, specifically distinguishing the current case from *United States v. Johnson*. The court argues that unlike in *Johnson*, Schulte's grand and petit juries were drawn from different courthouses, invalidating his argument regarding the 'relevant community' for the jury pool. The document mentions the 'underrepresentation analysis' and the 'absolute disparity method' for assessing jury fairness. While comprised in a dataset potentially related to Epstein, the text explicitly concerns Joshua Schulte (likely the CIA Vault 7 case).
DOJ-OGR-00005275.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 22, 2021, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, outlines the court's procedures and schedule for jury selection (voir dire). It sets deadlines in November for submitting juror questionnaires, schedules a potential in-person conference, and details the voir dire process for November 16-19, which will be conducted with public access while considering COVID-19 protocols. The court also denies a request from the parties to seal the questionnaires until after jury selection is complete, citing the need for a fair trial and public access.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity