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-00009746.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial due to material omissions by a juror, identified as Juror 50. The juror failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection, which prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge and would have been grounds for dismissal for cause. The argument is bolstered by citing the juror's later statements to the media, where he claimed his memory "was like a video" and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility, revealing a bias that tainted the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009743.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 was not impartial and failed to honestly disclose his past as a victim of sexual abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that this omission prevented the Court and defense from properly assessing his ability to be fair, particularly regarding the testimony of Dr. Loftus and the defense of Ms. Maxwell. The document suggests that had the juror been truthful, further inquiry would have been made, and his claim of impartiality is not credible.
DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers during voir dire, particularly concerning his use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The document contends that this pattern of dishonesty, combined with his post-trial media engagement, casts doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including those meant to screen for bias against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It also mentions a letter from the government, published by the media, which is described as an attempt to silence the juror and circumvent court rules.
DOJ-OGR-00009740.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that Juror No. 50's claim of not remembering a questionnaire question about personal experiences with sexual assault is not credible. The filing cites the questionnaire's explicit purpose of ensuring impartiality and points to the juror's post-verdict media interviews about his own victimhood as evidence that his omissions were intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00009738.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell has met the burden of proof for this claim, citing legal precedents and suggesting that video evidence of the juror being confronted supports the allegation of intentional falsehood. The ultimate goal is to argue for the juror's implied or actual bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009713.jpg
This legal document describes interviews given by Juror No. 50 to Reuters and the Daily Mail following a trial. Juror No. 50 stated that his disclosure of being a past victim of sexual assault helped convince other jurors who doubted the credibility of accusers. The document also highlights a video from the Daily Mail interview where the juror denies being asked about his sexual abuse history on the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009694.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. The filing argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct. The primary focus is on "Juror No. 50," who allegedly was untruthful during voir dire and subsequently gave media interviews; it also mentions a second juror who disclosed during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009651.jpg
This legal document, dated March 1, 2022, addresses the potential bias of Juror 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details questions posed to Juror 50 regarding his recollection of a jury questionnaire about sexual abuse, particularly in light of an interview he gave to a Daily Mail reporter. The document argues that Juror 50's childhood sexual abuse, similar to that of witnesses, is sufficient grounds for a 'for cause' challenge, citing legal precedent on implied and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009613.jpg
This is the conclusion and signature page of a legal filing by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government submits that the Court should grant the defendant's motion regarding 'Count One' but deny all other post-trial motions. The document is dated February 25, 2022, and signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and four Assistant US Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg
This legal document excerpt details the conviction of 'the defendant' on multiple counts related to sex trafficking and exploitation. It outlines evidence showing the defendant's involvement in transporting and abusing Jane with Epstein, arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein for money, and recruiting Virginia, all while they were minors. The document emphasizes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite defense arguments regarding victim credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00009597.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant's (Maxwell's) due process claim should be denied. The court asserts that she has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from a pre-indictment delay or that the Government's delay was for an improper purpose. The document cites legal precedents, including United States v. Marion, to emphasize that the statute of limitations is the main safeguard against stale charges and that cases brought within that period hold a strong presumption of validity.
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-00009586.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant was not legally prejudiced regarding witness testimony. It outlines that the defense received notes on witness Jane more than three weeks before trial and that the court's decision to permit witness Kate to testify came almost two weeks after notes were received, providing ample time for preparation. The filing cites legal precedents to assert that the court did not err in its handling of limiting instructions and that any failure to request them was the defendant's own, not a basis for a prejudice claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.
DOJ-OGR-00009579.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes a question posed by a jury during a trial. The core issue is whether sexual activity involving the defendant and a minor named Jane in New Mexico could be considered as evidence for a conviction on a charge related to transporting Jane to New York. The text argues that the jury's question is legally valid and references a prior statement by the Court from the trial transcript to support the relevance of the New Mexico events to the defendant's intent.
DOJ-OGR-00009553.jpg
This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00009529.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 18, 2013, details the background and alleged criminal conduct of a defendant named Parse. It outlines his education at the University of Michigan and his extensive career as an investment adviser at firms including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, and his own company, Union Capital LLC. The document introduces Parse's participation in a fraudulent tax shelter scheme where he advised shareholders of the Calphalon cookware company, including the Kasperzak family, on the disposition of stock from a sale.
DOJ-OGR-00009524.jpg
This document is a placeholder page from a court filing, likely related to the United States v. Maxwell criminal case (based on the Case 1:20-cr-00330 fragment visible in the distorted header) or related civil litigation. It indicates that pages A-6044 through A-6073 were intentionally omitted from the record. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009524.
DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg
This legal document analyzes statements made by defense lawyers in a memorandum regarding their investigation of a juror named Conrad. The author, likely a judge, concludes that while the lawyers' phrasing could have been clearer and may have led to unintended inferences, their statements were not knowingly false or a violation of ethical rules. The analysis specifically addresses a July 15 telephone conference where a lawyer, Trzaskoma, denied prior awareness of certain facts, a statement the author finds consistent with the lawyers' overall position.
DOJ-OGR-00009446.jpg
This legal document from a New York court in 2010 details a ruling in the case of "In re Conrad." The court denies the respondent's motion for reinstatement to the practice of law but does so without prejudice, allowing for a future motion. The respondent remains suspended indefinitely, effective nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007, but a previous finding of non-cooperation from that date is vacated.
DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on February 24, 2022, where a witness named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a legal brief. The questioning centers on whether Edelstein was aware that her colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, had already investigated an individual named Catherine Conrad before the final version of the brief was written. The testimony references specific passages from the brief concerning Conrad's credibility and the justification for the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009363.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Brune. Ms. Brune, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, is questioned about her ethical standards regarding the disclosure of facts to the court and the government. She defends her past actions by stating she did not believe it was her obligation to raise the opposing side's points and assumed the government had access to the same, if not more, information.
DOJ-OGR-00009346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct examination of Brune) designated A-5742. The testimony concerns procedural events in court, specifically the restarting of jury deliberations due to a juror's illness and the presence of alternate jurors. The witness also discusses the illness of Mr. Rosenbaum and denies withholding an issue from the Court until Rosenbaum fell ill.
DOJ-OGR-00009337.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies about being present for an entire trial, having a clear view of the jury, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being very attentive and taking copious notes. The document is part of case file 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022.
| 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