Sattar
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Sattar. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-01-01 | Court case | The S.D.N.Y. case United States v. Sattar, which applied the Aleman precedent and ordered a heari... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00009161.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should deny the defendant's request for a post-verdict hearing and 'pre-hearing discovery' concerning juror conduct. The argument is based on legal precedent, stating that the defendant's evidence—a single anonymous sentence from a newspaper article—is inadmissible hearsay and does not meet the required standard of 'concrete allegations.' The document cites several cases to support the position that courts routinely deny such inquiries to protect the finality of verdicts and avoid the dangers of post-verdict juror scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00009136.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that there is no basis to find that 'Juror 50' committed a 'deliberate falsehood' during the jury selection process (voir dire). It cites several legal precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit, to establish that juror misconduct requires proving intentional deceit, not just an honest mistake or failure to answer. The document concludes that the current record does not meet this high threshold to prove dishonesty by Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009133.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues against setting aside a jury verdict. It establishes that the standard for doing so is an "exacting hurdle," citing Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which severely restricts jurors from testifying about their deliberations. The document contrasts this federal standard with New Jersey state law and clarifies that only specific, improper outside influences, not a juror's personal experiences, can be grounds for such an inquiry.
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-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00010281.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government's consistent theory during trial was that Ms. Maxwell and Epstein engaged in a single, overarching criminal conspiracy, not multiple separate ones. The filing cites the government's own arguments to the jury, which emphasized a 'common playbook' used against four accusers, to contend that the government's current position is a contradictory, 'after-the-fact attempt' to preserve convictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010269.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists various legal precedents (cases) and statutes that are cited in the main body of the legal document. The cited authorities primarily consist of federal cases, many from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal and New York state statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.
DOJ-OGR-00009592.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 621) dated February 25, 2022. The author argues against a defendant's claim of multiplicity, urging the Court to apply the 'Korfant factors' for analyzing counts within the same indictment. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's claim should be rejected because the counts are legally distinct.
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as affidavits, to establish a genuine factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The filing contrasts the current defendant's lack of evidence with several precedent cases (Aleman, Sattar, Feldman) where hearings were granted because defendants submitted supporting affidavits or made uncontested assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00002956.jpg
This document is page xxi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal precedents in the format 'United States v. [Defendant]'. Each entry includes the case citation and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity