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-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-00009160.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal brief filed on February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against granting an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations, citing precedents from cases involving El Chapo (Guzman Loera), Bin Laden, and Martha Stewart. The argument asserts that unsworn newspaper reports or anonymous claims are insufficient evidence to warrant a juror inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing against the public release of pleadings from 'Juror No. 50'. The argument cites legal precedents, primarily Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, to outline the three-step process for determining public access to judicial documents. The author contends that releasing the documents would be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial and that there is no compelling reason for their release.
DOJ-OGR-00009033.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing (Document 613) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses legal precedents regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (referenced via 'Id.' and the mention of 'Juror Payton'). The text outlines the legal standard required to obtain a new trial when a juror fails to answer voir dire questions honestly.
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal memorandum dated January 13, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that pleadings filed by 'Juror 50' do not meet the legal standard for 'judicial documents' and therefore should not be subject to public access. The argument relies on precedent from Second Circuit cases, including United States v. Amodeo and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and notes that Ms. Maxwell intends to move to strike the pleadings, which would further support their exclusion from public view.
DOJ-OGR-00008949.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 600) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 11, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically focusing on how to determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It details a multifactor test adopted by the Second Circuit to distinguish between single and multiple conspiracies.
DOJ-OGR-00008919.jpg
This legal document, dated February 9, 2022, from Winston & Strawn LLP, describes the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and its practice of filing amicus curiae briefs. It cites legal precedents for amicus participation and requests the Court's permission to file an amicus brief regarding a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The document notes that Counsel for the Defendant has consented, while Counsel for the DOJ has not yet responded to inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00019870.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the detention of the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines her flight risk due to her 'extensive international ties,' noting she holds citizenship and passports for the US, UK, and France. It cites CBP records showing frequent travel, including 15 international flights in the prior three years to locations like Japan and Qatar.
DOJ-OGR-00019828.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Defective Filing' from Case 21-58 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated April 1, 2021. The court clerk notifies the filing party that their submission was defective because the pages, including 'T-1080 and Exhibits,' were not text-searchable. A deadline of April 5, 2021, is set to correct the issue to avoid the document being stricken or the appeal dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, likely an appellate brief filed by Ms. Maxwell's defense. It argues that Judge Preska (civil case) is evaluating unsealing documents without knowing critical facts obscured by a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. The defense contends that unless the order is modified to allow sharing information under seal, Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury will be prejudiced by the release of deposition materials.
DOJ-OGR-00010701.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from June 25, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to hear from individuals during sentencing, even if they do not strictly meet the definition of a 'victim' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It cites various legal precedents to support the admission of statements from 'affected individuals,' specifically mentioning 'Sarah' at the very end of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010408.jpg
This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) rejects the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) argument that she was prejudiced by the inability to call deceased witnesses, specifically two architects and a housekeeper. The court rules that this argument is speculative and unsubstantiated because other available witnesses, including Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, testified at trial covering similar topics regarding Epstein's residences, renovations, and private aircraft.
DOJ-OGR-00010376.jpg
This page from a court order in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) analyzes 'Korfant factors' to determine if separate conspiracy counts constitute double jeopardy. The court discusses Sarah Kellen's role, noting she was involved in the Count Five conspiracy (2001-2004) but received little attention during the trial compared to other conspirators. The document also highlights the complete temporal overlap between Count Five and Count Three (1994-2004) and the similarity of operations regarding the grooming and sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00010355.jpg
This document is page 32 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standard for 'implied bias' in jurors, specifically rejecting the argument that a juror must be presumed biased solely because they have personal experiences similar to the issues litigated at trial (referencing sexual abuse, though the specific nature is implied by the case context). The court cites Second Circuit precedents (Torres, Brown, Garcia) to support the ruling that implied bias is an 'intentionally narrow category.'
DOJ-OGR-00010352.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text addresses the controversy surrounding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The Court argues that even if the abuse had been disclosed, it would not have been grounds for a 'for-cause' challenge, provided the juror could remain impartial. The document emphasizes that victims of crimes (like fraud or murder) are not automatically disqualified from serving on juries for similar cases. A footnote details statistics regarding prospective jurors who answered 'yes' to Question 48 about abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010336.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text analyzes a motion regarding juror misconduct, specifically discussing the 'McDonough' test. The Court concludes that the juror's false answers during voir dire were not deliberate and that the second prong of the legal test was not satisfied. It also defines legal standards for actual, implied, and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010335.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court filing (Document 653) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 1, 2022. It outlines the legal standards for granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, specifically addressing juror nondisclosure during voir dire. The text cites the 'McDonough' standard, stating that a defendant must prove a juror failed to answer a material question honestly and that a correct answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010286.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 647) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that 'Count Five' (related to Florida/Carolyn) is multiplicitous because it is a subset of the broader 'Count Three,' citing the lack of independent conspiracy. It references testimony from victims Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer regarding sexual abuse at Epstein's properties in New Mexico, London, the US Virgin Islands, and Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00010214.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (likely a sentencing memorandum) regarding a defendant named Parse. It details the calculation of sentencing guidelines, noting a base offense level of 36 with enhancements for 'sophisticated means' and 'special skill' (as a broker and CPA), resulting in a guideline range of 292-365 months, capped at 276 months. The document also outlines Parse's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), specifically regarding loss calculations and culpability for the broader tax fraud scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00010145.jpg
This document is a page from the Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Gillers, likely submitted as an exhibit in a court case (possibly as an expert witness). It details his legal and public service activities between 1979 and 1992, including roles with the ABA, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the David Dinkins Mayoral Transition Search Committee. It also lists his bar memberships in New York and various federal courts. The document bears stamps from multiple court filings, including a 2012 criminal case and a 2022 civil case (likely Guiffre v. Maxwell), and a DOJ production number.
DOJ-OGR-00010118.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on March 22, 2022. In it, the judge ('The Court') asks counsel, Mr. Shechtman, for briefing on a hypothetical scenario regarding the appellate rights of both the defendant, Parse, and the government if a new trial were to be granted. Mr. Shechtman clarifies that the key issue is whether the defendant could file an interlocutory appeal before sentencing, which the Court confirms.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key 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 emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009881.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 644) dated March 11, 2022, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that Maxwell does not need to prove prejudice or that an innocent person was convicted to warrant a new trial. It counters government arguments that discourage inquiries into juror misconduct, citing case law (Tanner v. United States, United States v. Ianniello) regarding the sanctity of jury deliberations and the right to an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009813.jpg
This is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 643) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to meet the 'McDonough test' requirements to secure a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically stating that the defendant must prove the juror committed a 'deliberate falsehood' rather than an honest mistake. Despite this, the Government notes that it consents to a 'limited hearing' on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009754.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing 'Brown v. Maxwell' and 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.' regarding the definition of 'judicial documents' and the presumption of public access. The filing argues specifically against releasing 'Juror No. 50's pleadings,' claiming that doing so would generate prejudicial publicity and infringe upon Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity