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-00002286.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'joinder' (combining) and 'severance' (separating) of criminal charges, citing various precedents to argue that offenses separated by time, location, or circumstance should not be tried together. It specifically addresses the standards for joining perjury or false statement counts with substantive crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00002262.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated January 8, 2021, from attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Everdell requests a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal regarding the denial of his client, Ms. Maxwell's, renewed motion for bail, arguing it would promote judicial efficiency. Judge Nathan denied the request in a handwritten note dated January 11, 2021, stating that sufficient cause for the extension had not been provided.
DOJ-OGR-00002260.jpg
This legal document is the second page of a letter dated January 8, 2021, from attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Everdell requests a 30-day extension for his client, Ms. Maxwell, to file a notice of appeal against the court's December 28, 2020 order denying her bail. The letter argues the extension would promote judicial efficiency and notes that the government objects to the request.
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 36) from June 9, 2020, associated with Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines legal standards associated with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 regarding discovery obligations, specifically defining 'materiality' of evidence and what constitutes government 'possession, custody, or control.' It relies on legal precedents such as US v. Ulbricht, US v. Abdalla, and US v. Stein to argue the scope of evidence the government must produce.
DOJ-OGR-00021835.jpg
This is page 11 of a legal filing from November 2024 (Case 22-1426) arguing against a Second Circuit Court decision (U.S. v. Maxwell). The text contends that the court unfairly applied the 'Annabi' precedent to allow the SDNY to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit. The document highlights that witnesses told the OPR the agreement was intended to provide 'transactional immunity' to co-conspirators, yet Maxwell was denied discovery or a hearing on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) dated September 17, 2024. It details Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' of her indictment, specifically concerning testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00021759.jpg
This legal filing argues that the District Court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Ms. Maxwell. The author contends the court ignored key evidence from the OPR and improperly applied a rule of construction, ultimately failing to resolve ambiguities in the agreement in favor of Ms. Maxwell as required by law. The document cites precedent from the Second Circuit to support the necessity of such a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021736.jpg
This document is page 76 (PDF page 89) of a legal filing in Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), dated June 29, 2023. It outlines the Government's argument that Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable ('Point V'). Specifically, it discusses Maxwell's appeal against a 'four-level leadership enhancement' applied to her sentence, noting that Maxwell contests the finding that she acted as an organizer or leader of another criminal participant.
DOJ-OGR-00021711.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discussing the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically addressing how potential jurors with past experiences of sexual abuse were handled. It notes that defense counsel did not strike jurors who disclosed such history but affirmed their impartiality, citing specific examples of disclosures. The text transitions to a specific discussion regarding 'Juror 50' and their questionnaire responses to Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00021703.jpg
This document is page 43 (PDF page 56) of a government legal brief filed on June 29, 2023, in the appeal case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues against Maxwell's claim that Counts Three and Four do not constitute offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child because no completed sex act occurred. The government argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3509(k), the definition of sexual abuse is broader and includes employment, persuasion, and enticement.
DOJ-OGR-00021625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. Attorney Sternheim is speaking on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell, addressing the court and Judge Nathan. Ms. Sternheim acknowledges the courage of the victims and argues against the government's request for a sentence of 'multiple decades in prison' for Ms. Maxwell, who is nearly 61 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021592.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely US v. Maxwell appeal records) containing a judge's ruling during sentencing. The judge overrules the defendant's objection and sustains the government's objection regarding the PSR Guideline calculation, explicitly finding that Virginia Roberts and Melissa were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. Consequently, the judge rules that these victims must be included in the sentencing calculation under Section 3D1.4, despite not being named in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021585.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript (SA-409) from Case 22-1426, filed on 06/29/2023. It records a judge's ruling during a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's, given the 'sex crime' and 'minor' context and file codes). The judge explicitly finds the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions and overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing enhancements, stating that the clear text of the Guidelines overrides background commentary or legislative history.
DOJ-OGR-00021538.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on 02/25/22, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The court rejects Maxwell's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 violates her confrontation and due process rights, clarifying that Juror 50 is a factfinder, not a witness against her. The text cites various legal precedents to support the limitation on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021530.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standards required to hold a 'McDonough hearing' regarding juror nondisclosure, citing Second Circuit precedents that set a high bar for post-verdict inquiries to prevent juror harassment and 'fishing expeditions.' The court notes that the Defendant (Maxwell) argues against this standard but fails to provide an alternative.
DOJ-OGR-00021529.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding 'Juror 50.' The document discusses the legal standards (McDonough standard, Rule 606) for post-verdict inquiries into juror misconduct, specifically addressing allegations that Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021528.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order (filed Feb 25, 2022) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The text outlines the legal standards under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the 'McDonough' test regarding juror nondisclosure during voir dire. Specifically, the court is analyzing whether 'Juror 50' failed to answer honestly about past sexual abuse, though the court notes in a footnote that it is not yet resolving whether a new trial is merited at this specific juncture.
DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
This page from a legal brief (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erroneously relied on the non-controlling case *Weingarten v. U.S.* regarding the statute of limitations (specifically § 3283 vs § 3282) and Mann Act violations. The text analyzes the legislative history of the 2003 amendment to argue that the statute was intended for cases involving the actual abduction and rape of a child, distinguishing it from crimes that do not categorically involve minor abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 82) filed on October 2, 2020. The text argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to use a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order, citing that such writs are 'extraordinary remedies' reserved for exceptional circumstances like judicial abuse of power. It references legal precedents (Cheney, Glotzer) to support the argument that pretrial discovery orders are generally not reviewable on direct appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It argues that Judge Nathan erred by not modifying a protective order, preventing Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing sealed material with Judge Preska, which the defense claims is necessary to protect Maxwell's rights under the *Martindell* precedent. The document highlights the complexity of the litigation, noting that six sets of judicial officers are handling interrelated questions regarding Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00019422.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the Second Circuit appeal regarding Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines Maxwell's argument that the civil appeal court should reverse Judge Preska's order to unseal her depositions. She argues that unsealing the documents now would prejudice her ability to challenge the government's conduct (specifically an alleged violation of 'Martindell' by obtaining civil depositions for criminal use) before Judge Nathan in her pending criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019408.jpg
This page from a legal filing, dated September 24, 2020, discusses procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Brown v. Maxwell case. It references specific denied motions by Alan Dershowitz and Michael Cernovich to modify a protective order, as well as a denied request by the Miami Herald to unseal the docket. The top half of the page is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, likely by the prosecution or a respondent opposing an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the cases Maxwell cited in her notice of appeal are irrelevant ('inapposite') because they deal with third-party intervenors (like the press or the CFTC) seeking to modify protective orders, whereas Maxwell is a direct party to the case. It specifically distinguishes the current situation from *Brown v. Maxwell* and other precedents regarding appellate jurisdiction over protective orders.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity