DOJ-OGR
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Rick Ricarey
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00030366.jpg
This document appears to be Page 13 of a 114-page response to a Public Records Request (No. 17-295) dated July 26, 2017. The content is an excerpt of a legal statute (citing statutes 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084) outlining penalties for failing to register instant message names and mandating that the sheriff's office submit sexual offender information to the department within two working days. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
This document is page 45 of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the government must adhere to plea bargains and immunity agreements, specifically referencing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and arguing that 'Count Six' falls within the timeframe of that NPA. It cites case law (Harvey, Annabi) to support the argument that the government is held to a high standard regarding nationwide immunity promises and that new charges must be 'sufficiently distinct' from those covered by a plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021086.jpg
This document is a page from an appellate legal brief (Case 22-1426) arguing that the District Court erred in applying the 'Annabi' legal precedent to the Appellant's case. The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) originated outside the Second Circuit and should not be subject to its specific legal canons, and further argues that the conduct charged in Count Six falls within the time period covered by the original NPA. The document specifically challenges the USAO-SDNY's charges relative to the 2001-2007 offense period.
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
This page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) argues two main points regarding the Defendant's conviction and sentencing. First, it claims the Court failed to correct a juror misunderstanding regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the illegal sexual activity involving victim 'Jane' had to occur in New York versus New Mexico. Second, it argues the sentencing guidelines were miscalculated, specifically disputing an 'aggravating role adjustment' regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
DOJ-OGR-00021060.jpg
This document is page xii of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court cases and federal statutes (U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code) that are cited as legal precedent or authority within the main document, along with the corresponding page numbers where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021025.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the death of potential witnesses. The prosecution contends that the defendant's assertions about what these witnesses (architects and a housekeeper) would have testified are speculative and unsubstantiated. It further argues that other witnesses, such as Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, were available and did testify about similar matters, like renovations at Epstein's residences, meaning the information was obtainable through other means.
DOJ-OGR-00020969.jpg
This legal document, page 26 of a court filing, provides a detailed legal analysis of the concepts of "implied bias" and "inferred bias" in the context of juror partiality. It distinguishes between the two, defining implied bias as a conclusive presumption for extreme cases and inferred bias as a discretionary finding by the trial court based on a juror's responses. The document relies heavily on precedents from cases like McCoy, Greer, and Torres to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00020965.jpg
This document is a page from a court ruling (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) addressing the conduct of 'Juror 50.' The text analyzes whether Juror 50 intended to deceive the court by not disclosing his history of sexual abuse on a questionnaire in November 2021, despite discussing it in media interviews in January 2022. The Court considers his explanation that watching the victims testify inspired him to speak out, and that he believed using only his first name in interviews would maintain his anonymity among friends and family.
DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 1, 2022, addressing arguments by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) regarding Juror 50. The Court analyzes Juror 50's failure to disclose sexual abuse by a stepbrother on his jury questionnaire (Questions 48 and 49). The Court finds Juror 50's explanation—that he skimmed the questionnaire and did not consider his abuser to be 'family' at the time—to be credible and not an act of deliberate concealment.
DOJ-OGR-00020959.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court ruling in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), addressing potential juror misconduct. The Court analyzes Juror 50's failure to disclose past sexual abuse on a questionnaire, concluding that the errors were not deliberate but rather the result of rushing and carelessness. The judge credits Juror 50's testimony, citing his calm demeanor, consistency, and the fact that he testified under a grant of immunity with the threat of perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00020957.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal standards for investigating juror misconduct, specifically whether a juror lied during voir dire and the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606 regarding inquiring into jury deliberations. It cites various precedents (McCoy, Nix, Tanner) to establish the boundaries of a 'McDonough inquiry' into juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00020938.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, identified as being completed by Juror 50. The document was filed on March 9, 2022. In response to the final question, the juror indicated that they do not wish for any of their answers to be kept confidential from the Judge, counsel, or the Defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00020935.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on March 9, 2022. The prospective juror, identified as Juror 50, indicates that neither they nor a family member have ever been involved in activism related to sex trafficking or similar crimes. The juror also states they would have no difficulty assessing the credibility of a law enforcement witness fairly.
DOJ-OGR-00020934.jpg
This document is a completed juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed as part of a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) on March 9, 2022. The juror answers questions about their ability to remain impartial in a trial involving sex crimes against underage girls, laws about sexual consent, and federal sex trafficking laws. In all instances, the juror indicates that these factors would not prevent them from being a fair and impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020877.jpg
This document is a court exhibit (A-251) from Case 22-1426, filed on February 28, 2023. It is a screenshot of a Daily Mail Online news article from January 2022, which features a photograph of an unnamed juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The URL indicates the article's subject is the juror's perspective on the evidence that led to the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00020821.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying motions filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The court denies her motion for a bill of particulars, which sought more specific dates for alleged sex trafficking crimes, ruling that the indictment's four-year timeframe (2001-2004) is sufficient. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to compel immediate disclosure of a Minor Victim's prior statements, finding the current disclosure schedule adequate.
DOJ-OGR-00020809.jpg
This document is a signed legal affirmation by Jeffrey E. Epstein dated December 7, 2007. In the document, Epstein formally re-affirms the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and Addendum dated October 30, 2007. The document was faxed from the law firm Fowler-White Burnett and later entered into the Florida Southern District docket in 2010.
DOJ-OGR-00020794.jpg
This document is a page from a legal case file, identified as 'Exhibit B' within Case 22-1426, Document 57, dated February 28, 2023. It is page 176 of 208 and includes the identifier DOJ-OGR-00020794, indicating its origin or classification.
DOJ-OGR-00020790.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court discusses the timeline for the Government to produce a witness list, noting that while Maxwell faces challenges due to the 'decades-old allegations,' the Government's proposal to provide information six weeks in advance is reasonable. The text also notes that on April 13, 2021, the Government produced over 20,000 pages of discovery materials related to non-testifying witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00020785.jpg
This is page 26 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page covers two main points: the Court's decision to sever perjury counts to ensure a fair trial, and the denial (as premature) of Maxwell's motion to strike 'surplusage' regarding allegations involving 'Minor Victim-3' and activities that occurred in England.
DOJ-OGR-00020744.jpg
This legal document, part of a criminal case, outlines allegations against MAXWELL for grooming and recruiting several minors for sexual abuse by Epstein. It details specific instances involving 'Minor Victim-2' in New Mexico and 'Minor Victim-3' in London between 1994-1995, stating MAXWELL was aware of the abuse. The document also mentions 'Minor Victim-4' was recruited and paid by Epstein or his associates for sexualized massages.
DOJ-OGR-00020732.jpg
This document is a court docket page from Case 22-1426, showing multiple entries filed on August 10, 2022. The entries are notices of filing for the official transcripts of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, which occurred on several dates in December 2021 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document specifies the deadlines for parties to request redactions before the transcripts are made publicly available through the PACER system.
DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
This document is a court docket log (SDNY CM/ECF) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between April 22 and April 23, 2021. It details procedural exchanges regarding electronic devices in the courtroom (denied), suppression motions, adjournment requests, and proposed redactions to protect third-party privacy (granted). The document lists key legal teams for both the defense (Boies Schiller Flexner) and the prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach), and includes Judge Alison J. Nathan's rulings on these procedural matters.
DOJ-OGR-00020654.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from the Southern District of New York regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the court's rulings on numerous pretrial motions filed by Maxwell, denying most of them, including motions to dismiss based on Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and statute of limitations. The court did, however, grant Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial and ordered both parties to negotiate and submit schedules for remaining pretrial matters by April 21, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00020572.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet (Case 22-1426) covering proceedings related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell between March 10, 2022, and April 1, 2022. It details various motions including a Motion for New Trial filed by the defense, the government's opposition, and orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding redactions to protect juror anonymity. The document also lists legal team members for both sides and references transcripts and sealed documents.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity