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-00020380.jpg
This legal document from May 27, 2021, argues that a renewed motion for Ghislaine Maxwell's release should be denied. It supports Judge Nathan's prior ruling that Maxwell is a flight risk and asserts that no new "compelling" reason has been presented to overturn the decision. The document also details Maxwell's extensive access to legal discovery materials and communication with her attorneys while in custody at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00014644.jpg
This document is a transcript of a judge's charge to a jury, specifically Instructions No. 55 and 56, from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury not to speculate about individuals not on trial, clarifies that it is normal and proper for witnesses to prepare with lawyers before testifying, and gives the jury full discretion in weighing such testimony. The judge also notes that some evidentiary documents have been redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005816.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, discusses the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The Government intends to use this testimony to provide background on victim behavior, specifically why victims might return to their abusers like the defendant and Epstein. The document also references an October 11, 2021 letter where the Government notified the defense about specific evidence and witness testimony it plans to present at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
This document is a legal filing that refutes the defense's arguments against the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The author argues that the defense misinterprets legal precedent, specifically the Raymond case, and that Dr. Rocchio's testimony, based on qualitative social science, is valid under the standards established by cases like Daubert and United States v. Ferguson. The filing defends the expert's methodology against claims that it is unreliable, uncorroborated, and lacks statistical precision.
DOJ-OGR-00005794.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a motion arguing for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio. The document refutes the defendant's claim that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are unreliable, asserting that the testimony on coercion, attachment, and grooming in abuser-victim relationships is well-supported and will help the jury understand the evidence at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing dated March 24, 2021, details a court's analysis of a dispute between the defendant, Schulte, and the Government over the proper 'relevant community' for jury selection. The court sides with the Government, ruling that the appropriate jury pool is the White Plains master wheel, which draws from all counties in the Southern District, rather than just those that supply jurors to Manhattan where the trial is to be held. This decision is based on legal precedent and the statutory composition of the judicial district.
DOJ-OGR-00002771.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 22, 2021, is a portion of a court filing discussing the legal standards for a defendant's bail motion. It outlines the rebuttable presumption of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), detailing the defendant's burden of production and the government's ultimate burden of persuasion. The document notes that the defendant has filed a third motion for bail, arguing for reconsideration based on new conditions and a purportedly weakened government case.
DOJ-OGR-00020132.jpg
This legal document is part of a motion where a defendant proposes a new, comprehensive bail package to secure release from pretrial detention. The defendant offers a $28.5 million package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family, along with conditions like home confinement, GPS monitoring, and restricted travel. The motion cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider its previous bail decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00020108.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from a legal filing arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail. It outlines her proposed bail package, including financial transparency and sureties, while contending that the government is applying an unfair standard due to her association with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020105.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, dated December 23, 2020, likely related to a bail application. The arguments outlined challenge the government's case by highlighting its reliance on limited witness testimony, asserting Ms. Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S. (including her spouse), her full financial disclosure for a bond, and the low probability of her being a flight risk. The filing also leverages a recent COVID surge at the MDC facility as an additional reason for granting bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020092.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and a demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets. The filing also refutes the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement, stating she has ample access to her legal counsel and discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
This page from a legal document analyzes several precedent cases to argue for or against the detention of a defendant pending trial. It distinguishes the current case from others like *Khashoggi* and *Bodmer* where defendants were released, and draws parallels to cases like *Boustani*, *Patrick Ho*, and *Epstein* where defendants were detained. The analysis focuses on factors such as flight risk, financial resources, ties to foreign countries, and the existence of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00020088.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The central argument is that the assets securing the bond, held by the defendant's spouse, were originally funneled from the defendant herself, meaning the spouse would not lose his own money if she were to flee. This, combined with the defendant's considerable financial resources, foreign ties, and legal precedent against a 'two-tiered' bail system, supports the position that she should remain in detention as a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020086.jpg
This legal document discusses the defendant's financial status and its implications for her bail conditions. It highlights that the defendant possesses significantly more assets ($22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds) than initially reported, making her a substantial flight risk. The document also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed bail bond, noting that some co-signers are UK residents who haven't offered cash or property, and the defendant's $7 million attorney retainer is presumed unspent.
DOJ-OGR-00020075.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of the defendant, Maxwell. It asserts that even though some documentary evidence does not name her, it supports victims' testimonies about their interactions with both her and her co-conspirator, Epstein, making the Government's case strong. The document also dismisses the defense's bail arguments, citing the defendant's foreign ties, transfer of millions to her spouse, and ability to hide as factors that weigh heavily in favor of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00020072.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing against bail for a defendant, citing the high flight risk due to a potential 35-year sentence and the strong opposition from victims. It emphasizes the strength of the government's evidence, particularly the anticipated testimony of three victims regarding the defendant's role in grooming them for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020046.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. The argument centers on her high public profile, which would make fleeing difficult, and her willingness to sign irrevocable waivers of extradition for both the United Kingdom and France. The document cites the case of United States v. Cirillo as a precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should reconsider Ms. Maxwell's bail application based on new evidence. It cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider such decisions and states that Ms. Maxwell has received over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government since her initial hearing, which allegedly raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00005666.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 387) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The filing outlines arguments to exclude evidence related to 'Accuser-3,' asserting it is inadmissible under evidence rules like 404(b) and 403. In the alternative, it requests the court to prevent the government and Accuser-3 from describing her as a 'Minor' or as having been 'Sexually Abused' by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005637.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 386 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021) arguing against the reliability of certain expert testimony. It cites the precedent of *United States v. Raymond*, where the court excluded expert Ken Lanning's testimony on grooming because it lacked objective benchmarks and was deemed unreliable. The filing suggests the current court should follow this precedent and also notes that another individual, Rocchio, while a treatment provider for victims, lacks experience in evaluating perpetrators.
DOJ-OGR-00005598.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a request from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel to the Court. It argues that the government failed to comply with a September 3, 2021 court order that mandated the disclosure of all alleged co-conspirator identities and statements by October 11, 2021. The filing claims that while the government identified three co-conspirators, including Jeffrey Epstein, it refused to disclose all statements, and therefore asks the Court to prohibit the government from using these statements at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005592.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a motion by the Government in a criminal case. The Government argues that the Court should prevent the defense from introducing certain evidence and arguments, such as the Minor Victims' consent or a separate Florida investigation, deeming them irrelevant and prejudicial. The Government requests that the defense be required to provide advance notice before raising these issues so their admissibility can be litigated outside the jury's presence.
DOJ-OGR-00005588.jpg
This legal document is a motion from the Government arguing that the court should preclude the defense from calling case agents to testify about matters the Government deems irrelevant. These topics include the thoroughness, scope, timeline, and charging decisions of prior investigations in Florida and New York. The Government contends that this testimony is not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence and asks the court to require the defense to make an offer of proof before introducing such arguments or evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00005583.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defense's motion to introduce evidence regarding the origins of the New York investigation. The prosecution contends that the defense's claims—that the investigation was improperly motivated by a prior non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, his death, and public pressure—are irrelevant to the defendant's guilt and would create a prejudicial 'circus' at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005577.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the Government's strategy for an upcoming trial. The prosecution anticipates defense attacks on the credibility of 'Minor Victims' and plans to introduce prior consistent statements to rebut these attacks and rehabilitate its witnesses. Additionally, the Government argues to preclude the defense from introducing what it deems irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, specifically concerning the history and outcomes of various 'Epstein investigations' in other jurisdictions.
| 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