Kyles
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Whitley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1995-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Kyles v. Whitley was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. | U.S. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008400.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The text contains legal arguments discussing case law precedents (*Kyles* and *Watson v. Greene*) regarding the admissibility of evidence related to the thoroughness of a law enforcement investigation and *Brady* material obligations. The text specifically analyzes a precedent involving a shooting investigation to argue about what lines of cross-examination should be permitted regarding police diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically an argument regarding the scope of the government's discovery obligations. It cites several legal precedents (Brady, Giglio, Avellino, Kyles, Barcelo) to argue that a prosecutor's duty to disclose information is limited to materials in their possession or the possession of the 'prosecution team' (e.g., investigating officers), and does not extend to information held by separate, uninvolved government entities.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00005580.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated October 29, 2021, argues that the jury should not consider the adequacy or methods of the government's investigation when determining a defendant's guilt. Citing multiple legal precedents, the author contends that details about investigations, including the one involving Jeffrey Epstein, are irrelevant to the case at hand. The document refutes the defense's position that they should be allowed to challenge the thoroughness of the government's investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the defense in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's motion to preclude evidence related to its motives for prosecution. The defense asserts its right to present evidence about the timing of the charges against Maxwell in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death, not to claim 'vindictive prosecution,' but to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. The defense argues that the government's motion is an overreach and an attempt to force the disclosure of their trial strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 18, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding jury selection (*voir dire*), citing Second Circuit precedents to argue that the court, rather than attorneys, should conduct the questioning of potential jurors to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The filing asserts that the defendant (Maxwell) has provided no persuasive reason to deviate from this customary practice.
DOJ-OGR-00002706.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is an argument from the defense demanding the immediate production of unredacted reports from the government. The defense contends these reports, held by the FBI, contain exculpatory 'Brady material' and that the government cannot fulfill its disclosure obligations by providing redacted versions. The argument is supported by citations to legal precedents, including Kyles v. Whitley, and a prior ruling from the court on the timing of such disclosures.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity