Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror candidate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cynthia Hopkins
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00022137.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 3 of 5) of a legal agreement filed on May 25, 2021, and dated May 20, 2021. The agreement stipulates that if the defendant successfully completes their term of supervision, the Government will move to dismiss the indictment. The document is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Lonergan on behalf of Audrey Struass, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00022131.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal agreement filed on May 25, 2021, and signed on May 20, 2021. In it, the defendant, Michael Thomas, admits to falsifying records at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on August 9 and 10, 2019. Represented by his attorney Montell Figgins, Thomas waives his right to a speedy trial and acknowledges the agreement is subject to court approval.
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
This is page 8 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (USA v. Noel and Thomas). The court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel the government to produce evidence held by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), ruling that the BOP is not part of the prosecution team for Brady disclosure purposes. The document also outlines Thomas's argument that the conduct he is charged with was rampant within the BOP and acquiesced to by leadership.
DOJ-OGR-00022082.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends it is not required to produce documents from separate investigations conducted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or other federal agencies into the death of Jeffrey Epstein, because those agencies are not part of the prosecution team and the materials are not in the prosecution's possession.
DOJ-OGR-00022073.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion filed by an individual named Thomas on April 9, 2020. Thomas is seeking to compel the Government to produce a wide range of documents related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death, including the Inspector General's report, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) records, and disciplinary files for MCC employees. The Government asserts that Thomas is not entitled to these materials and that his motion should be denied by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00022041.jpg
This legal document, a court filing from April 9, 2020, argues that the government must produce all relevant and exculpatory evidence to the defendant, Mr. Thomas, for trial preparation. Citing the Brady doctrine and cases like United States v. Bagley, it asserts that the government has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, including information that can impeach prosecution witnesses, and that the court should compel this discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00022034.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on April 9, 2020, in a criminal case on behalf of Defendant Thomas. The defense requests the court to compel the prosecution to turn over various documents and reports, arguing they contain exculpatory evidence under Rule 16 and Brady-Giglio. The motion claims the defendant's alleged criminal conduct was a result of widespread practices and policies within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and that the government has unfairly refused to disclose this relevant information.
DOJ-OGR-00022029.jpg
This legal document provides background on the criminal case against correctional officers Mr. Thomas and Noel, who are charged with conspiracy and creating false records. The charges stem from an investigation that began after the alleged suicide of Jeffrey Epstein on August 10, 2019, at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where the defendants allegedly failed to conduct required prisoner counts and falsified logs to cover it up. The document also outlines the procedural history of discovery requests made by defendant Thomas, which were denied by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021940.jpg
This document is page 9 of a 10-page court filing from November 19, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. It is part of an "Advice of Penalties" form and consists of a map and a list defining the counties that fall under the jurisdiction of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York federal courts. The document is marked with a Department of Justice Bates number, indicating it was produced as part of a legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021845.jpg
This document is the conclusion page of a legal petition filed on November 1, 2024, regarding Case 22-1426. Attorneys Diana Fabi Samson and Arthur L. Aidala, representing Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, request the court vacate a panel decision, overrule 'Annabi', and dismiss the indictment or remand for an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021838.jpg
This legal document analyzes court precedent regarding whether a plea agreement in one federal district binds prosecutors in another. It argues that the 'Annabi rule' has been sharply criticized and was based on a misreading of prior cases from the Second Circuit, specifically Abbamonte, Alessi, and Papa. The document suggests that the precedent set by these earlier cases does not support the broad interpretation applied in Annabi.
DOJ-OGR-00021787.jpg
This document is a legal notice (NOTICE TO THE BAR) from Case 22-1426, dated 02/29/2024, outlining procedures for obtaining audio recordings of oral arguments and arranging court reporters or interpreter services. It details how to purchase argument CDs for $34 and the requirements for providing written notice and consent for court reporters or interpreter services at least one week prior to a hearing or oral argument. The document serves to inform legal professionals about these administrative processes within the court system.
DOJ-OGR-00021769.jpg
This legal document argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because the court failed to explore potential bias in a seated juror (Juror 50). The filing draws an analogy to the case of Nieves, asserting that the court's refusal to investigate the juror's background related to child sexual abuse—a central theme in Maxwell's case due to her association with Epstein—deprived the defense of the opportunity to challenge the juror for cause. The document contends this failure is particularly significant given the pervasive community bias against those accused of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00021766.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the District Court abused its discretion in the case against Maxwell. The argument focuses on the court's handling of Juror 50, whose failure to provide truthful answers during voir dire and whose personal life experiences mirrored trial testimony, should have been grounds for a challenge for cause due to unexplored potential bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
This legal document, page 70 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the applicable law regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' in criminal indictments. It cites several precedents, including United States v. Khalupsky and United States v. D'Amelio, to define the conditions under which trial evidence or jury instructions improperly alter the original charges brought by a grand jury. The document distinguishes between a constructive amendment, which modifies the essential elements of the offense, and a variance, where the indictment's terms are unchanged but the evidence proves different facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021716.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the applicable law for granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a). It establishes the high burden of proof on the defendant and explains why post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct are strongly disfavored by the courts. The text cites several key legal precedents to support the argument that protecting the finality of jury verdicts and the integrity of deliberations is paramount.
DOJ-OGR-00021712.jpg
This legal document describes the statements and actions of Juror 50 in a criminal case involving a defendant named Maxwell. During jury selection, Juror 50 affirmed his impartiality and denied on a questionnaire that he or his family had ever been victims of sexual abuse or crime. However, in post-verdict interviews with journalists, he revealed he was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, stating he had "flew through" the questionnaire but believed he answered honestly.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021698.jpg
This legal document discusses discrimination claims and the application of statutes of limitations. It references previous cases such as Landgraf and Enterprise, and considers the retroactive effect of revised statutes of limitations, particularly in the context of securities fraud claims and child sexual abuse cases involving Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00021637.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a judge is explaining the rationale for sentencing Ms. Maxwell. The judge states the sentence must be substantial to reflect the severity of her crime, the harm caused, and to serve as a general deterrent for similar offenses. The judge also emphasizes that the rule of law applies equally to everyone, regardless of wealth or social status, and that 'nobody is above the law'.
DOJ-OGR-00021627.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker, likely her defense counsel, argues for a reasonable sentence by citing mitigating factors from her life. These factors include the traumatic accident and death of her eldest brother, the overwhelming influence of her 'narcissistic' father, and the 'controlling, demanding, manipulative' influence of Jeffrey Epstein on her adulthood.
DOJ-OGR-00021541.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, details a court's order regarding an inquiry into the truthfulness of answers provided by Juror 50. The court sets a deadline of March 1, 2022, for the parties to submit proposed questions for a hearing. The court denies the Defendant's broad subpoena requests for Juror 50's communications, social media history, and other records, labeling them a "vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition."
DOJ-OGR-00021536.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion or a party's brief, dated February 25, 2022. The text analyzes Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations to challenge a verdict. The document discusses the rule's specific exceptions, such as external influence or racial bias, in the context of the Defendant's attempt to use statements from 'Juror 50' about what another juror said. The central issue is whether these statements are barred by Rule 606 or fall under one of its exceptions.
DOJ-OGR-00021532.jpg
This legal document discusses a discrepancy between a juror's (Juror 50) responses on a questionnaire and subsequent public statements. Juror 50 denied being a victim of a crime on the questionnaire but later told media outlets, including The Independent and The Daily Mail, on January 5, 2022, that he had been sexually abused as a minor. Based on these contradictory statements, the Court has decided to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021455.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal filing, specifically an exhibit (SA-279) filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) and later in an appellate case (22-1426). The text outlines specific Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC), focusing on candor in dealing with others and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, likely used to argue that attorneys involved in the underlying case (potentially the Epstein plea deal) violated ethical standards regarding honesty and misrepresentation.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-09-17 | Received | Burman, Critton, ... | Court | $138.80 | Invoice for cancelled deposition services (Appe... | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity