W.D.N.Y.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001583.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 10, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the main document, providing the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and span from 1978 to 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000971.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has successfully rebutted the legal presumption that she is a flight risk. It asserts that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving that no set of bail conditions could reasonably ensure her appearance in court. The document cites several legal precedents to support its claim that the Court should order Ms. Maxwell's release under her proposed conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00020957.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal standards for investigating juror misconduct, specifically whether a juror lied during voir dire and the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606 regarding inquiring into jury deliberations. It cites various precedents (McCoy, Nix, Tanner) to establish the boundaries of a 'McDonough inquiry' into juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
This document is Page 19 of a court ruling filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, labeling it a 'fishing expedition,' and rules that Juror 50 will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire. The Court also orders that the questionnaire be docketed (unsealed), citing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
DOJ-OGR-00021535.jpg
This legal document argues that a news article alleging juror misconduct is insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. It cites numerous legal precedents from various courts, including the Second Circuit, which have consistently held that unsworn, hearsay, anonymous, or speculative reports do not meet the high evidentiary standard required to investigate such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
This document is page 37 of a legal filing (Doc 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the Court should have further probed 'Juror 50' regarding his ability to set aside past traumatic experiences and fairly evaluate the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus. The filing cites voir dire transcripts from November 16, 2021, where Juror 50 affirmed his ability to be impartial, and references case law (*United States v. Pirk*, *United States v. Barnes*) regarding the limited purpose of voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00019877.jpg
This document is the 'Table of Authorities' (page ii) from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), originally filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited within the main brief, including cases such as Hung v. United States, United States v. Boustani, and United States v. Dreier. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019877).
DOJ-OGR-00010434.jpg
This document is page 17 of a defense sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the application of sentencing guideline § 4B1.5 ('Repeat and Dangerous' sex offenders), asserting that Maxwell has not committed crimes in nearly 20 years, is not attracted to minors, and acted only as a facilitator for Epstein's impulses rather than having them herself. The text contrasts her behavior with case law examples of violent repeat offenders and highlights her subsequent crime-free life involved with partners who had children.
DOJ-OGR-00003116.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss, citing legal precedents (United States v. Young, Edwards v. Mazzuca) to establish that specific dates are not required in indictments regarding sexual abuse of minors due to memory limitations of victims. The text specifically highlights 'Minor Victim-1' who suffered abuse over multiple years, arguing that a timeframe is sufficient for the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity