DOJ-OGR
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Rick Ricarey
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00009969.jpg
This document is a page from an index for a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case of 'United States of America, v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.'. The page lists numerous words and proper names (such as McCarthy, McDonough, and Massachusetts) and provides the page and line numbers where they can be found in the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and bears the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009969.
DOJ-OGR-00009957.jpg
This document is a single page from an alphabetical index of a court transcript for the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. The page, marked with Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009957, covers keywords from 'allergic' to 'back' and provides the page and line numbers where these terms appear in the full transcript. Notable entries include 'Aponte', 'Arizona', and 'Attorney'.
DOJ-OGR-00009936.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It features the direct examination of a witness, Catherine Conrad, by attorney Mr. Gair. The questioning focuses on impeaching Conrad's credibility by highlighting her history of alcoholism, pancreatitis, and a suspension from the practice of law by the Appellate Division for 'shocking disregard for the judicial system' and mental/physical disability. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, often associated with document releases related to high-profile inquiries, though the specific link to Epstein in this fragment appears to be the document batch source rather than direct content.
DOJ-OGR-00009916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Paul M. Daugerdas. The witness, Ms. Trzaskoma, is being questioned regarding her knowledge of misconduct by Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad), specifically regarding a Westlaw report identifying Conrad as a suspended lawyer. Trzaskoma testifies that she believed the report was a case of mistaken identity and denies trying to 'sandbag' the court by withholding information about Conrad's criminal history and suspended license during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009908.jpg
This document is page 37 of a court filing index (Exhibit List) filed on August 24, 2022, listing various government exhibits (GX). The exhibits describe letters, emails, faxes, and financial statements (Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown) dated between 1999 and 2002. Key individuals in the correspondence include Paul Daugerdas, Michael Hammer, Donna Guerin, David Parse, and Carrie Yackee.
DOJ-OGR-00009905.jpg
This document is an index page (page ii, filing page 4 of 67) from a legal filing dated August 24, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cv-00388-PAE. It lists page references for trial transcripts covering dates from March 15, 2011, to April 15, 2011 (Trial Days 9 through 27). The document bears a Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (DOJ-OGR) Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
Page 16 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed March 11, 2022. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial or hearing because Juror No. 50 failed to truthfully answer voir dire questions 25 and 48, preventing the defense from challenging the juror for cause. The text disputes the government's position on the burden of proof, citing precedents such as McDonough, Langford, and United States v. Stewart.
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The filing refutes the government's arguments concerning 'finality' and the 'disfavor' of new trial motions. It asserts that the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated, citing legal precedents that establish the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring the conviction to be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00009864.jpg
This document is a screenshot of a DailyMail.com news article, captured on January 26, 2022. It shows a photograph of an unnamed juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The document is identified as page 11 of 16 of Document 643-2, filed on February 11, 2022, in the legal case 1:20-cr-00351-RA Maxwell, and bears the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009864.
DOJ-OGR-00009851.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing an article or transcript featuring interviews with a juror named David following the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. David explains to media outlets (MailOnline and The Independent) how the jury relied on corroborated testimony to establish a 'pattern' of grooming, specifically citing victims Kate, Jane, Annie Farmer, and Carolyn. He details specific grooming tactics used by Maxwell, such as acting like a teenager and normalizing nudity or massage, and dismisses the defense's expert witness on memory.
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009818.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes a defendant's claims that a juror, Juror 50, lied during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing argues there is insufficient evidence to prove the juror deliberately lied about not being a victim of a crime or about his social media usage. It specifically addresses the juror's failure to mention an inactive Twitter account and the claim he deleted his Facebook and Instagram accounts, suggesting these were not material or deliberate falsehoods.
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.
DOJ-OGR-00009741.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a page from a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The argument centers on the post-trial conduct of 'Juror No. 50,' who allegedly engaged in a paid publicity tour, gave interviews for a documentary, and communicated with journalist Annie Farmer, demonstrating bias. The document criticizes the government for publicly filing a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's tour, arguing this was an improper procedure that alerted the juror to scrutiny, whereas Ms. Maxwell's counsel would have objected and preferred the matter be handled under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00009699.jpg
This document is page 7 of a 66-page legal filing, specifically Document 642 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. The page appears to be a table of authorities, citing the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment and various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence, along with corresponding page numbers. A Bates number in the footer, DOJ-OGR-00009699, suggests the document originated from the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009671.jpg
This document is page 10 of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 9, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The potential juror answers 'No' to questions about whether they, a relative, or a close friend have ever been subpoenaed for an investigation or arrested/charged with a crime.
DOJ-OGR-00009652.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions to be asked of 'Juror 50' (identified as male) regarding whether his history of childhood sexual abuse, involvement in victim advocacy, or therapy history affected his impartiality during the trial. The text argues that direct questions about fairness yield self-serving answers and proposes specific inquiries into the impact of the abuse on his life and relationships.
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the government in a criminal case, dated February 25, 2022. The government argues against a defendant's motion, asserting that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay are speculative and unsupported by evidence. The government specifically refutes the defendant's argument that lost flight manifests would have been helpful to the defense, citing legal precedents to argue that the defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009592.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 621) dated February 25, 2022. The author argues against a defendant's claim of multiplicity, urging the Court to apply the 'Korfant factors' for analyzing counts within the same indictment. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's claim should be rejected because the counts are legally distinct.
DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text contains legal analysis rejecting the defendant's argument that the Court's response to a jury note constructively amended the indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Jones, Lebedev, Muraca) to support the Court's discretion in handling jury inquiries and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009570.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the Government's argument regarding Mann Act convictions, detailing how the defendant aided and abetted Epstein in transporting minors (specifically 'Jane' and Virginia Roberts) to New York for illegal sexual activity. The text specifically cites a 2001 flight from Maine to Teterboro involving Epstein, the defendant, and Virginia Roberts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity