Justice Blackmun
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Justice Brennan
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Justice Stevens
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Justice O'Connor
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Justice Marshall
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Justice Powell
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Justice Stevens
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Justice O'Connor
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978-01-01 | N/A | Bakke decision | US Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg
This document is Page 34 of 66 from a legal filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments concerning juror misconduct and bias, citing precedents such as *United States v. Langford*, *United States v. Stewart*, and *Clark v. United States* to establish that a new trial may be warranted if a juror provides false answers during voir dire. The text emphasizes Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards for determining when a juror's dishonesty invalidates a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009726.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standards for determining juror bias based on false or misleading answers during voir dire. It cites precedents from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, such as McDonough, Langford, and Clark v. United States. The key argument presented is that a juror who intentionally lies to be selected is not a legitimate juror, and such dishonesty can be grounds for a new trial, outlining the specific tests used in the Second Circuit to prove such bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009725.jpg
This document page is from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding juror misconduct and the standard for obtaining a new trial, citing the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*. The text quotes concurring opinions by Justices Blackmun and Brennan to argue that a juror's intentional dishonesty is not strictly required to order a post-trial hearing on bias.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017743.jpg
This document proposes an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, suggesting that courts must consider the views of victims before approving a waiver of a jury trial. It provides the text of the proposed rule change and a rationale based on the public interest in jury trials, supported by legal citations and Supreme Court precedents. The page also contains extensive footnotes referencing relevant case law and legal scholarship.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017741.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review article (page 27 of 52 in the submission) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the constitutional rights of victims and the public to attend criminal trials in the local community (vicinage) under Article III, the First Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. The text argues that victims have a compelling interest in observing proceedings and should have the right to be heard regarding venue transfer decisions under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity