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-00005840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details procedural disputes regarding the timing of the Government's disclosure of co-conspirator statements to the defense. The Court ruled that the Government's commitment to produce these statements six weeks before trial (alongside Jencks Act and Giglio materials) was sufficient, denying the defense's request for earlier identification.
DOJ-OGR-00005838.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a portion of a government motion arguing against the defense's proposed jury instruction. The Government contends that the defense's instruction regarding sexual activity with 'Minor Victim-3' is wrong on the law and that the relevance of United Kingdom's age of consent law should be disregarded. The document also states that the Government has already provided the defense with discovery materials, including the identities of alleged co-conspirators, making the defense's request to preclude their statements baseless.
DOJ-OGR-00005831.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against precluding the testimony of 'Minor Victim-3' in the trial of the defendant, Maxwell. The prosecution contends that even if the acts against this victim were uncharged, her testimony is crucial to establish a pattern of abuse, show the defendant's relationship with Epstein, and prove her knowing participation in a conspiracy. The document cites legal precedent to support delaying any decision to strike this evidence until after the government has presented its case at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005819.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing for the admissibility of specific evidence and witness testimony at an upcoming trial. The Government contends that exhibits and the testimony of "Employee-1," a former employee of Jeffrey Epstein, constitute direct evidence of the offenses charged and should be admitted, citing an October 11, 2021 letter where this evidence was disclosed to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00005769.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that accusers in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial should not be referred to as "victims" or "minor victims" to protect the presumption of innocence. The defense contends that using such terms implies a crime has definitely occurred, which biases the jury before a verdict is reached.
DOJ-OGR-00005763.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing (Document 394 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated October 18, 2021, and filed on October 29, 2021. The filing requests that the Court issue an order to preclude any testimony or reference concerning an alleged rape by Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005742.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, dated October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The defense argues that a photographic identification of Ms. Maxwell conducted on June 23, 2021, was suggestive and tainted, and therefore should be suppressed by the Court. The argument cites several U.S. Supreme Court cases to support the claim that the procedure violated the defendant's right to due process.
DOJ-OGR-00005708.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument against introducing evidence of alleged false statements (perjury counts) in Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence would substantially prejudice the jury by introducing unrelated allegations, risk the disqualification of her counsel, and create a distracting side-show, thereby jeopardizing her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The arguments heavily rely on the Court's reasoning from a prior severance ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00002896.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 5, 2021, analyzes Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) concerning ex parte applications for pretrial subpoenas. It contrasts the majority view, which generally disfavors such applications unless for trial use, with specific court precedents that permit them to protect sensitive information like trial strategy. The text cites several cases, including Weisman, Fox, and Reyes, to illustrate the legal arguments and differing practices among court districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002873.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated March 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order directs the involved parties to meet by April 1, 2021, to either provide specific justification for proposed redactions or to inform the court that they are withdrawing their request for redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002823.jpg
This legal document details the procedural history of the criminal case against Schulte, a former CIA employee. It covers his August 2017 arrest for leaking national defense information, subsequent indictments, and a trial in early 2020 which resulted in a guilty verdict on two counts and a mistrial on eight others. The document concludes by noting that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City immediately after the trial caused a suspension of court proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002752.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The prosecution contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships (French and British) does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of her fleeing the country. The document argues the renunciation's validity is unclear and could be challenged later, and it cites a previous case (United States v. Cohen) where similar offers were deemed insufficient to assure the court that the defendant was not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00002710.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on February 4, 2021. The motion requests the court to order the government to disclose favorable evidence and, more significantly, to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements from alleged co-conspirators, particularly the deceased Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that admitting such testimonial statements without the possibility of cross-examination would be highly prejudicial and cites legal precedents like the 'Geaney rule' to support the need for a prior hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002705.jpg
This document is a legal filing from a court case dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that the contents of a specific interview constitute exculpatory 'Brady material' and asks the Court to compel the government to produce any notes or reports from it, which are currently missing from discovery. The defense also notes its requests for the government to provide unredacted copies of two specific FBI reports that were part of the Miami FBI's investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00002689.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing that the government must demonstrate the admissibility of any evidence related to 'Accuser-3' under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The filing asserts that this evidence constitutes 'other acts' evidence, which is typically inadmissible to prove character, and therefore its relevance and purpose must be formally litigated before being introduced at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005265.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal filing from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, dated October 18, 2021. In it, the Government, represented by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and his assistants, formally requests the Court's permission to publicly file motions *in limine* with proposed redactions. The document confirms it was submitted respectfully and copied to the defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00005261.jpg
This document is a legal filing detailing a defense team's motions in limine to exclude specific evidence, testimony, and terminology (including references to Jeffrey Epstein and characterizing accusers as "victims") in a criminal case. It also outlines procedures for temporary sealing of confidential discovery materials and reserves the right to file additional motions.
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
This legal document is page 3 of a court filing from October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the court's reasoning for denying a defendant's request for attorney-conducted voir dire. The defendant argued for it based on significant pretrial publicity and the case's sensitive nature, but the court concluded that court-conducted voir dire is sufficient to ensure fairness and prevent potential prejudice, citing legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00005230.jpg
This legal filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell's right to prepare her defense has been compromised. The document details how the Government refused to hand-deliver a hard drive of evidence to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), instead using FedEx, and how the MDC then delayed giving the materials to Ms. Maxwell for several days. Counsel requests the Court's intervention due to the MDC's alleged inefficiency and mishandling of legal mail.
DOJ-OGR-00005228.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated October 14, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter informs the court of the defense's intent to file a Rule 412 motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by November 15, 2021. It justifies this timeline by stating it is essential for counsel to adequately consult with their client and prepare the necessary legal research and procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00005227.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ms. Maxwell. The defense counsel argues against the government's proposed deadline for a Rule 412 motion, requesting more time to review over 8,000 pages of recently disclosed material and witness information. The defense asserts that a deadline before November 15 is unreasonable given the volume of new evidence and the defendant's custodial status.
DOJ-OGR-00005219.jpg
This page from a legal document argues for the necessity of individual, sequestered voir dire conducted by legal counsel, in addition to the Court. It contends that this method is more effective at uncovering potential juror bias, especially in cases with significant pretrial publicity, by fostering a more conversational and less intimidating environment that encourages honesty. The text cites legal precedent and academic research to support the claim that attorney-led questioning yields better results for seating a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005215.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 13, 2021, argues for the necessity of individual, sequestered voir dire (jury questioning) for a high-publicity case involving a well-known defendant. The filing contends that the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the charges, specifically sexual abuse of minors, makes it unlikely for jurors to be candid in a group setting, thus hindering the ability of both the defense and prosecution to identify biases and ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002783.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines proposed bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell, including 24/7 private security and strict supervision by Pretrial Services. It argues against the government's opposition to bail and asserts that the District Court retains jurisdiction to decide on the matter despite a pending appeal in the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00002776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion or order analyzing a defendant's flight risk. The Court is not persuaded by the Defendant's proposals to renounce her UK citizenship or to have a retired federal judge oversee her finances, concluding that she would still be able to delay or resist extradition. The Court maintains that the Defendant remains a flight risk due to her substantial international ties and the incentive to flee.
| 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