Seventh Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998-01-01 | N/A | Seventh Circuit decision in United States v. Hach | US Court of Appeals | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000058.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, discussing the interpretation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and plea agreements. It argues that ambiguities in such agreements should be resolved against the government, citing several court cases. The document specifically contends that the NPA in question was intended to bind the Southern District of New York, contrary to a Second Circuit conclusion that suggested it only bound the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000053.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal document discussing the enforceability of plea agreements made by the U.S. Attorney's Office, particularly concerning whether such agreements bind the entire government or only the specific office involved. It contrasts the Ninth Circuit's view, which generally holds agreements binding on the whole government, with the Second and Seventh Circuits' opposite presumption, which limits enforceability to the specific U.S. Attorney's office unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text references case law such as United States v. Johnston and Annabi.
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
This document, likely a legal petition or brief, discusses the reasons for granting a petition filed by 'Maxwell' after an en banc rehearing was denied. It focuses on a circuit split regarding the binding nature of plea agreements made by a U.S. Attorney's office in one district on other U.S. Attorney's offices. The document cites Santobello v. New York as a precedent suggesting that such promises should be binding across different prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00018344.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, presenting an argument for the admissibility of photographs taken long after the events in question. It cites legal precedents, including United States v. Causey (2014) and United States v. Smith (2020), to support the claim that such photos are relevant if they depict enduring scenes like buildings. The document also notes the defense's counter-argument regarding relevance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00015048.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 789) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2025. It outlines the legal standards and 'special circumstances' under which grand jury records may be released, citing precedents like *In re Craig* and *Laws. 'Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. v. Garland*. The text lists specific factors a district court must weigh when considering disclosure, such as the status of principals, privacy of families, and whether witnesses are still alive.
DOJ-OGR-00008419.jpg
This is a letter from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter argues that under Rule 613(b), the court has discretion to require that an alleged inconsistent statement be shown to a witness before extrinsic evidence is admitted, citing United States v. Marks.
DOJ-OGR-00000737.jpg
A court order from the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 2025, addressing a government motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The court acknowledges the request to unseal the transcripts (subject to redactions for victims) but states it cannot rule without a Memorandum of Law from the government addressing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. The document cites legal precedents regarding the 'special circumstances' required to release such records.
DOJ-OGR-00015145.jpg
This document is Page 13 of 31 from a legal filing (Document 809) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 11, 2025. The text outlines legal standards for disclosing grand jury materials, discussing the 'special circumstances' doctrine recognized by the Second and Seventh Circuits. It provides a dense list of case citations, including precedents involving the unsealing of records related to President Nixon (Watergate) and President Clinton (1998 investigation involving a White House intern).
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that a plea agreement made by a United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district is generally binding on other USAOs and the federal government as a whole. It cites several court cases, such as Gebbie and Van Thournout, to support this majority view, while also acknowledging contrary or more limited rulings from circuits like the Seventh and Sixth in a footnote.
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
This legal document from July 27, 2023, argues that Ms. Maxwell has legal standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites precedent from the Second and Seventh Circuits to support the claim that the immunity granted in the NPA should prevent the United States from prosecuting her in the Southern District of New York. The document asserts that the District Court has already correctly found in Maxwell's favor on this point.
DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
This page of a legal document argues against a critique by Maxwell of the 'Annabi' rule. The author contends the rule is sound, prevents defendants from receiving unintended immunity, and is supported by the Justice Manual's policy on multi-district agreements. The document concludes that the court is bound by this rule as it is an established precedent that has not been overturned.
DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a judge's ruling sustaining the government's objection to the introduction of prior inconsistent statements as extrinsic evidence without first giving the witness an opportunity to explain them. The ruling cites Federal Rule 613(a) and case precedents including United States v. Surdow and Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure.
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010702.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 675) from June 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the Court should hear from all victims of Maxwell's sex trafficking conspiracy during sentencing, citing legal precedents (such as United States v. Salutric) that allow judges to consider a defendant's broader criminal history and uncharged acts. The text emphasizes that victim impact statements regarding background and conduct are essential for determining a fair sentence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017673.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by attorney David Schoen, bearing a House Oversight Committee stamp. It presents a legal argument citing a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various precedents (Ritchie, Brady, Hach) to argue that constitutional discovery obligations apply only to the government/state actors, not to third parties or crime victims. The text specifically argues against the ability of defendants to subpoena medical or psychiatric records from third-party witnesses who are not state agents.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023399.jpg
This document is page 39 of a legal brief or court opinion (Westlaw) regarding 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'. It discusses the legal liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for defendants who provided financial and material support to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, specifically noting funding provided in Sudan in the early 1990s. The document bears the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023399', suggesting it was part of a congressional investigation, likely related to financial institutions involved in terrorist financing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023375.jpg
This document is a Westlaw printout (dated 2019) bearing a House Oversight Committee bates stamp. It details legal proceedings regarding the 'Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation, specifically summarizing Judge Daniels' 2010 dismissals of numerous defendants (including members of the Bin Laden family, Saudi banks, and other individuals) for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The text focuses on the legal standards for liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the requirement to prove specific intent to support the 9/11 attacks.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity