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-00009724.jpg
This legal document outlines the appellate history of a case concerning juror bias. The district court denied a new trial, the court of appeals reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court then reversed the court of appeals, establishing a new, stricter legal standard for when a juror's failure to disclose information during voir dire warrants a new trial. The case was ultimately remanded for an evidentiary hearing under this new standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
This document is page 31 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments regarding a motion for a new trial, specifically discussing the legal standards for juror misconduct and false answers during voir dire (jury selection). The text cites precedents such as United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
DOJ-OGR-00009568.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text presents legal arguments defining the differences between 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' regarding indictments. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Lebedev, Gross, McGinn, D'Amelio) to argue that minor factual divergences at trial do not invalidate a conviction as long as the 'core of criminality' remains the same.
DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It contains the 'Preliminary Statement' and 'Legal Standard' sections of the Government's opposition to the defendant's post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial. The text outlines the legal standards for Rule 29 (acquittal based on insufficient evidence) and Rule 33 (new trial in the interest of justice), citing various legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal standards for a post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing precedents like 'Ventura' and 'Guzman Loera.' The Court rules that it will conduct a hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false answers to Question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked about personal or family history of sexual harassment or abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00003130.jpg
This document is page 196 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding 'Minor Victim-3' to demonstrate the defendant's intent and modus operandi, citing legal precedents (McDarrah, Brand). It also argues that the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One or Three based on multiplicity is premature under Second Circuit precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00003127.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) arguing for the admissibility of evidence. It cites numerous Second Circuit precedents to establish that 'uncharged criminal conduct' is admissible in conspiracy cases when it explains the relationship between coconspirators or completes the story of the crime, rather than merely showing bad character. The text focuses on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
DOJ-OGR-00003117.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's claims that the indictment is vague or that 'grooming' is not illegal behavior, citing Second Circuit precedents that define grooming as a form of enticement or inducement of minors for illegal sexual activity. The document asserts that the indictment adequately informs the defendant of the charges under 18 U.S.C § 371, § 2422, and § 2243.
DOJ-OGR-00003112.jpg
This document is page 178 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00003112) of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 16, 2021. It is a legal memorandum discussing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 and the standards for the sufficiency of an indictment. The text cites various legal precedents (Alfonso, Resendiz-Ponce, Wey, Stringer) to argue that an indictment generally does not need to specify evidentiary details or how an offense was committed, provided it tracks the statutory language and protects against double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00003099.jpg
This document is page 165 of a legal filing (Document 204) from April 2021 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to sever Counts Five and Six, stating that the perjury charges and sex abuse charges are logically connected by a common scheme. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) and various case precedents to support the joinder of offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00003013.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the Defendant failed to prove the Indictment was delayed for an improper purpose. The text discusses the legal standards for pre-indictment delay, citing Supreme Court and Circuit precedents, and rejects the Defendant's request for a 'balancing test' regarding prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg
This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 16, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding the statute of limitations for sex crimes involving minors, specifically arguing that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 applies retroactively to crimes committed between 1994 and 1997. The text cites relevant case law (US v. Leo Sure Chief, US v. Jeffries) to support the position that the indictment is timely because the victims are still alive.
DOJ-OGR-00002944.jpg
This document is page 10 (labeled 'ix') of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 16, 2021, in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists legal precedents beginning with 'S' through 'U', including citations for *United States v. Nader* (marked 'passim', meaning cited frequently) and various Second Circuit decisions. The footer indicates this document was processed by the DOJ Office of Government Relations.
DOJ-OGR-00004869.jpg
This is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text presents legal arguments citing various precedents (including Martinez, Carrillo, and Baird) to establish that non-prosecution agreements should be treated as binding contracts similar to plea agreements. This argument is likely being used to support the defense's claim regarding the applicability of the 2007 Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004790.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 307) by the Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 25, 2021. The text argues that the Government did not violate Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights by obtaining and using her deposition transcripts from a previous civil case. It cites Second Circuit precedent to establish that civil protective orders do not guarantee protection against the use of testimony in subsequent criminal prosecutions.
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 380) from October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text is a legal argument citing multiple precedents (Boyle, Rodriguez, Hill, Watts, Carneglia) to support the exclusion of evidence related to the government's charging decisions. The argument asserts that such evidence is hearsay, irrelevant, and potentially confusing to jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00005416.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 380) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It contains a Government argument (Section A) requesting the Court preclude the Defense from presenting evidence regarding government charging decisions. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and case law (Rosado, Borrero) to argue that such evidence is irrelevant, hearsay, and likely to confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005399.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It discusses legal standards and Second Circuit precedents regarding the protection of witness identities versus a defendant's right to cross-examination. The text cites various cases (Marcus, Marti, Urena, Cavallaro) to support the argument that courts must balance witness safety against the defense's need for information, particularly in cases involving sex trafficking or safety risks.
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 18, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding jury selection (*voir dire*), citing Second Circuit precedents to argue that the court, rather than attorneys, should conduct the questioning of potential jurors to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The filing asserts that the defendant (Maxwell) has provided no persuasive reason to deviate from this customary practice.
DOJ-OGR-00002895.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 195) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government is arguing that the Court should require notice for all Rule 17(c) subpoenas rather than allowing them to be issued *ex parte* (without notice), citing various legal precedents (Wey, Earls, Skelos, St. Lawrence, Boyle) to support the position that *ex parte* proceedings should only be permitted with a compelling reason. Footnotes clarify the Government's concern regarding financial institutions responding to broad subpoenas for impeachment purposes and state that this request does not apply to subpoenas returnable at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002670.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 144) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It presents a legal argument regarding the Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283). The text argues that Counts One and Two (under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)) do not specifically require the victim to be a child or involve physical abuse/kidnapping, and therefore should not be subject to the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00005733.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 391) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, dated October 29, 2021. The defense argues that admitting seized evidence based on the affidavit of Detective Recarey violates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights because Recarey (the original custodian) is dead and unavailable for cross-examination. The text emphasizes that no other witness has sufficient personal knowledge of the seized items, their storage, or the 'confusing' handwritten notes in the inventory.
DOJ-OGR-00002711.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 148) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 4, 2021. The text constitutes 'Section V. Motion for Accelerated Disclosure of Witness Statements,' where the defense argues they need early access to Jencks Act material to prepare for trial. They cite the age of the allegations (25 years), the lack of electronic records from that era, the location of witnesses in foreign countries, and the logistical difficulties posed by the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the request.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity