Judge Marrah
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Recusal | Florida prosecutors were recused from a case as a result of Judge Marrah's decisions in the CVRA ... | Florida | View |
| 2019-07-16 | Court hearing | A legal argument was presented in court regarding the scope of a nonprosecution agreement from th... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2019-07-01 | N/A | Northern District of Georgia prosecutors filed submission before Judge Marrah supporting the NPA | CVRA Case venue | View |
018.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court conference held on July 8, 2019, in the Southern District of New York regarding the case U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein. The proceedings cover the scheduling of bail hearings, the government's confirmation of its obligation to notify victims, and preliminary arguments regarding the 2007/2008 Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The defense argues the NPA bars this prosecution, while the government asserts the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York and that the current indictment involves separate conduct and victims.
EFTA00020185.pdf
This document is a transcript of the initial court conference for United States v. Jeffrey Epstein held on July 8, 2019, before Judge Richard M. Berman. Key topics discussed include the scheduling of a bail hearing, the controversy surrounding the 2007 Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) which the defense argues bars this prosecution, and the government's stance that the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York. The court also addresses Epstein's sex offender status, the recent search of his Manhattan townhouse, and sets a schedule for bail submissions and the next hearing on July 15, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000398.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. An attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, argues before a judge that a nonprosecution agreement made in the Southern District of Florida was understood by that district to be limited in scope, and therefore does not impede a separate prosecution in the Southern District of New York. This argument is intended to counter the defense's position and validate the ongoing investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a defense attorney argues against the legality of a prosecution. The attorney claims the government is improperly relying on old evidence from a 2007 Florida case and is violating established Department of Justice procedure by prosecuting the same conduct in a second jurisdiction (Georgia) after it was handled in the first (Florida).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity