This document is page 7 of a legal filing from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 9, 2021. It discusses the legal admissibility of a telephone directory (Exhibit GX 606) found at the Palm Beach residence, arguing it is not hearsay because it is offered to prove a link between Maxwell and the listed contacts rather than the truth of the contact details. The text cites witness Mr. Alessi's testimony confirming Maxwell regularly used this directory.
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities listing case law citations. It was filed on July 10, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell). The page lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and 'United States v. Kashoggi', referencing rulings from the S.D.N.Y., 2nd Circuit, and other jurisdictions regarding bail or detention issues (inferred from the statute 18 U.S.C. § 3142).
This legal document, page 14 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's detention order and for considering a defendant's temporary release. It cites U.S. statutes and several legal precedents, including United States v. Watkins and United States v. Scarborough, to establish that the court applies a 'deferential review' and that a defendant bears the burden of proving temporary release is necessary for their defense or for other compelling reasons.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a legal filing (Document 18) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and several other cases regarding bail and detention, referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
This legal document argues for the continued pretrial detention (remand) of Mr. Epstein. It cites legal precedents establishing a strong presumption of detention for defendants charged with certain serious offenses, arguing this presumption is not easily overcome. The document concludes by highlighting that the U.S. Pretrial Services Department, after interviewing Mr. Epstein, issued a report on July 8, 2019, recommending to the court that he remain in custody.
This legal document, dated July 12, 2019, is a filing by the U.S. Government arguing for the pretrial detention of the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution refutes the defense's attempt to characterize the alleged crimes as 'simple prostitution,' asserting that under federal law, a minor cannot consent to being exploited, and coercion is not a required element for a child sex trafficking charge. Citing the defendant's history of abuse and past statements minimizing his conduct, the Government concludes that he poses a significant flight risk and danger to the community.
This document is page 12 of a defense filing arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. The defense argues that Epstein's 'tier-one' sex offender status in the U.S. Virgin Islands indicates low risk, and cites legal precedents (Sabhnani, Hansen) where wealthy defendants with foreign ties were granted bail. A significant footnote asserts Epstein is solely a U.S. citizen, his only foreign residence is in France (which has an extradition treaty), and the majority of his assets are in the U.S.
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition rights from France and the United Kingdom is not a sufficient guarantee against flight risk. It details how the extradition process in the UK is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to judicial and executive discretion, meaning the defendant could still challenge it. The document concludes by citing legal precedent that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk, thus weighing in favor of detaining the defendant pending trial.
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' lacks legal standing and has no right to intervene in a criminal case. The filing references several legal precedents, including Cunningham v. Shoop and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, to discuss juror bias and testimony, ultimately concluding that established precedent, such as in United States v. Stoerr, prevents a non-party from having a judicially recognized interest in a defendant's prosecution. The document also notes that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer a questionnaire, having later publicly admitted to being a victim of sexual assault.
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity