Raniere
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-22 | Legal ruling | A ruling was made in the case of United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-05-06 | Court order | The Court granted a motion in the Raniere case to allow victims to testify using pseudonyms and w... | Eastern District of New York | View |
| 2019-05-06 | Court order | An order was issued in United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Court decision | In United States v. Raniere, the court noted that since it had already held one detention hearing... | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal proceeding | A court decision was made in the case of United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal case | The date of the cited case, United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case of United States v. Raniere, which is cited as precedent. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
EFTA00010040.pdf
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Judge Alison Nathan regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The government requests clarification on two points: limiting cross-examination details about witnesses' specific acting roles (e.g., genre of movies) to prevent identification, and barring courtroom sketch artists from drawing exact likenesses of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00001231.jpg
This legal document is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 28, 2020. The order explicitly denies the renewed motion for release on bail filed by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The court's decision references a precedent from the 2018 case United States v. Raniere.
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 22, 2021, that discusses the legal standards for pretrial detention and the reopening of bail hearings. It references the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. ยง 3142), which allows for reopening a hearing with new, material information, and also cites case law (Raniere, Havens, Rowe, Petrov) to establish that a court has inherent authority to reconsider its own bail decisions even without new evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002254.jpg
This document is the final page (page 22) of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail (Dkt. No. 97). The document cites United States v. Raniere as legal precedent regarding the evaluation of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00002254(1).jpg
This document is the final page of a court order dated December 28, 2020, and filed on December 30, 2020. United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the renewed motion for release on bail for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
This is the concluding page of a legal document filed on April 24, 2020, by the office of United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman. The document argues that the defendant Thomas's motion to compel discovery for a selective prosecution defense should be denied because the defendant failed to meet the required 'rigorous standard'. The filing cites several legal precedents to support the argument that courts routinely prevent defendants from questioning the government's motives for prosecution at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005814.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio regarding delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. It cites several legal precedents (Raniere, Young, Betcher) to demonstrate that such testimony is helpful for juries to understand victim behavior. The document also addresses the defendant's specific challenge that Dr. Rocchio is not an expert on memory in general, with the Government conceding that point but affirming her expertise in the relevant field of trauma psychology.
DOJ-OGR-00005794.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a motion arguing for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio. The document refutes the defendant's claim that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are unreliable, asserting that the testimony on coercion, attachment, and grooming in abuser-victim relationships is well-supported and will help the jury understand the evidence at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020149.jpg
This legal document is a court order signed by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 28, 2020. The order explicitly denies Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail. The decision references a precedent from the 2018 case of United States v. Raniere.
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues that the defense in a federal criminal case is improperly relying on civil case law regarding pseudonyms for plaintiffs. It asserts that the current case involves crime victims, who are entitled to statutory protections under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, unlike civil plaintiffs who are generally required to identify themselves. The document criticizes the defense for ignoring relevant precedent from high-profile sex abuse trials and for citing irrelevant civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00005402.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, arguing for the use of pseudonyms for testifying victims. It cites several legal precedents from the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, including the cases of Raniere, Martinez, Schulte, and Hernandez, to support the argument that protecting victims from harassment, embarrassment, and encouraging testimony outweighs defense interests, particularly in sensitive cases like sex trafficking and national security.
DOJ-OGR-00005400.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no absolute right for an accused person to know a witness's true name and address, citing various legal precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It emphasizes the strong public interest in protecting the identities of victims, particularly in sex abuse cases, to ensure their dignity, privacy, and safety, and to encourage future victims to report crimes. The document provides multiple examples of cases where courts have permitted victims, including minors, to testify using pseudonyms or partial names.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity