Court of Appeals
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-03 | N/A | Scheduled oral argument for rehearing. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-08-07 | N/A | Court granted petition for rehearing en banc. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-08-07 | N/A | Court granted petition for rehearing en banc and vacated panel opinion. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-04-14 | N/A | Court of Appeals denied Jane Doe 1's petition. | 11th Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001228.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, filed Dec 30, 2020) arguing against granting bail to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that no conditions, including GPS monitoring or private security, can assure her appearance given her prior sophistication in evading detection. It cites the 'Boustani' precedent to argue against a 'two-tiered bail system' that allows wealthy defendants to create private jails using their own funds.
DOJ-OGR-00000979.jpg
This document is page 18 of a defense motion (filed July 10, 2020) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing her decision to stay in the U.S. after Epstein's arrest, and argues that the government overstates the risk posed by the potential length of her sentence. The text cites various legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support the claim that a long potential sentence alone is insufficient grounds for detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000969.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (likely a memorandum in support of bail) arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. It asserts that the government has failed to prove she is a flight risk or that no conditions can assure her appearance, citing the Bail Reform Act and Supreme Court precedent favoring liberty. It also references the COVID-19 crisis and a footnote cites a letter regarding poor prison conditions hindering legal defense preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00000937.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that wealthy male defendants with foreign ties (listing specific examples like Madoff and Weinstein) were granted bail to prepare for trial, and Maxwell deserves the same treatment. It cites legal precedents stating that pretrial detention is an 'extraordinary remedy' reserved for limited cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000866.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from September 22, 2021, detailing the procedural history of a defendant's third motion for release on bail. It outlines the dates of the defendant's motion, the government's opposition, and the defendant's reply. The document then discusses the legal standard regarding the court's jurisdiction to rule on the bail motion while the defendant's bail appeal is pending in a higher court.
DOJ-OGR-00000829.jpg
This is a legal form filed on August 5, 2019, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the criminal case 'United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein' (Docket 19-2221). The form was completed by Epstein's attorney, Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, to state that he is not ordering a court transcript. The reason provided is that a 'Daily copy' is already available.
DOJ-OGR-00000791.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, likely US v. Epstein) arguing the legal standards for pre-trial detention. It cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that a defendant can be detained based on dangerousness to the community or risk of flight, noting that witness tampering is sufficient grounds to revoke bail. The text outlines the four factors of the Bail Reform Act required for the release/remand analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00000646.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019. It discusses the legal concept of 'abatement' following the death of a defendant, citing the Second Circuit case *U.S. v. Wright*. The text explains that upon a defendant's death during a pending appeal, the conviction, indictment, restitution, and forfeiture orders are typically vacated.
DOJ-OGR-00000021.jpg
This document is page 20 of an appellate court opinion (likely 2nd Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' violating the Fifth Amendment because it differed from the indictment charges. The court rejected this argument and affirmed the lower court's ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00000015.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) affirming a District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on timeliness. The court rejects Maxwell's arguments regarding the statute of limitations and the applicability of the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, ruling that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents including Weingarten v. United States and United States v. Sampson.
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prevents her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The court cites *United States v. Annabi* to conclude that the NPA was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts like SDNY. Footnotes discuss legal precedents regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues against allowing the Government to bypass the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by moving jurisdictions ('parachuting into a new circuit'). It cites various legal precedents to argue that the court should apply the law of the circuit where the violation or agreement occurred (referencing the 11th Circuit) to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights in the plea-bargaining process.
DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg
This page contains a legal analysis from a court document (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the legal standards for 'variance' versus 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Banki, Rigas, Bastian, Salmonese, etc.) to establish that a defendant must prove substantial prejudice to reverse a conviction based on a variance claim. The text concludes by noting the Defendant is bringing a motion pursuant to Rule 33 to vacate judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020988.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 45-page legal filing (Document 657) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on April 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Applicable law' regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicitous' indictments and how courts determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It cites various Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedents to establish the legal standard for reviewing such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020975.jpg
This document is page 32 of a 40-page court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standard for 'implied bias' regarding jurors, specifically rejecting the argument that a juror must be presumed biased simply for having personal experiences similar to the issues at trial. The court cites Second Circuit precedents (Daugerdas, Torres, Brown, Garcia) to support the conclusion that implied bias is a narrow category reserved for extreme situations, such as deliberate lying to get on a jury, rather than merely shared experiences.
DOJ-OGR-00020815.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023, rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that her prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court argues that because Maxwell herself was not previously prosecuted or punished in the Florida investigation, and because Epstein's previous plea deal does not confer immunity to his co-conspirators, the charges against her stand. The text cites various legal precedents to support the Government's position that co-conspirators are not automatically protected by another's non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00020812.jpg
This document is a page from a court order rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) protects her from prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Citing the Second Circuit precedent *United States v. Annabi*, the court maintains that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district where they are entered. The court dismisses Maxwell's renewed motion and supplemental authority, affirming that the SDNY is not bound by the agreement made in another district.
DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
This page is from a legal ruling in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal complexities of trying Maxwell for both perjury and Mann Act charges simultaneously, specifically focusing on the potential conflict of interest and prejudice if her civil attorneys are called as witnesses. The Court weighs the burden of separate trials against the lack of overlap in evidence between the perjury and sex trafficking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020772.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's rejection of Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the 2003 PROTECT Act and retroactive application of laws to past conduct. The legal analysis relies on precedents such as 'Weingarten' and 'Landgraf'.
DOJ-OGR-00020590.jpg
This document is the second page of a court notice regarding Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal based on the date and case number format). It notifies the filing party of a defect in a previous submission and sets a strict deadline of July 19, 2022, to correct the error to avoid the document being stricken or the appeal dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00020545.jpg
This document is a court docket page from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) covering proceedings from November 10-11, 2021. It details a pretrial conference attended by Maxwell and her legal team, scheduling orders for voir dire (jury selection), and rulings on motions in limine regarding expert testimony on grooming. The document also outlines strict COVID-19 protocols for the courthouse and notes the denial of a defense motion to exclude specific expert testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015145.jpg
This document is Page 13 of 31 from a legal filing (Document 809) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 11, 2025. The text outlines legal standards for disclosing grand jury materials, discussing the 'special circumstances' doctrine recognized by the Second and Seventh Circuits. It provides a dense list of case citations, including precedents involving the unsealing of records related to President Nixon (Watergate) and President Clinton (1998 investigation involving a White House intern).
DOJ-OGR-00002363.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Document 134) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text presents a legal argument requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a redacted source (likely civil depositions) and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six. The argument focuses on the sanctity of protective orders in civil litigation, asserting that the depositions intrusively probed Maxwell's sexual practices, preferences, and partners in what began as a defamation case.
DOJ-OGR-00002323(1).jpg
This document is page 'ii' (labeled Page 3 of 13 in the PDF) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (Cases) and Statutes cited elsewhere in the filing. The citations heavily reference cases involving jury selection and fair representation (e.g., Duren v. Missouri, Taylor v. Louisiana), suggesting the main document likely involves a motion regarding jury composition or selection.
DOJ-OGR-00002304.jpg
This is page 5 of a court filing (Document 122) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument regarding 'double jeopardy' and 'multiplicity,' citing the 'Blockburger' test and the Second Circuit's 'Korfant factors' to determine if two conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It lists eight specific factors courts use to analyze whether distinct conspiracies are actually the same legal offense.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity