Dupigny
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Almonte
|
Linked in evidence |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-23 | N/A | Order in United States v. Dupigny | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-10-17 | Court proceeding | A transcript was recorded in the case United States v. Dupigny, permitting the use of real first ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), and two attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe). They are discussing how to respond to a note from the jury, which requested a transcript of 'Matt's' testimony and a definition of 'enticement'. The judge decides to send the transcript and directs the jury to specific page and line numbers in the jury instructions for the definition.
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00014691.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a discussion between the Judge (The Court), Defense (Mr. Everdell), and Prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding a response to a jury note during deliberations. The court is preparing to send the jury a transcript of testimony from a witness named 'Matt' and is clarifying jury instructions regarding the definition of 'enticement' found on pages 21 and 33 of the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically Document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio, who would explain the psychological dynamics of abusive relationships to help the jury understand why victims might act in counterintuitive ways, such as returning to an abuser. The document cites several other cases to support the argument that such dynamics are beyond the common knowledge of an average juror, while also noting the defendant's objection that this type of testimony is not how Rule 702 is meant to work.
DOJ-OGR-00005793.jpg
This legal filing (Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding sex trafficking, coercive control, and the psychological relationship between pimps and victims. It cites several precedents (Kelly, Torres, Randall, Dupigny) where such testimony was permitted. Specifically, it defends the qualifications of Dr. Rocchio, a Brown University professor with 25 years of clinical experience, noting that the defendant does not contest her expertise.
DOJ-OGR-00005400.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no absolute right for an accused person to know a witness's true name and address, citing various legal precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It emphasizes the strong public interest in protecting the identities of victims, particularly in sex abuse cases, to ensure their dignity, privacy, and safety, and to encourage future victims to report crimes. The document provides multiple examples of cases where courts have permitted victims, including minors, to testify using pseudonyms or partial names.
DOJ-OGR-00005247.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 354) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 15, 2021. The text argues that the Court has the authority to set an earlier deadline for the defense to file motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (the rape shield law), citing various precedents to support the Government's request for an earlier briefing schedule. The document references multiple other cases (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to demonstrate that courts frequently set Rule 412 deadlines more than 14 days prior to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005811.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio in a criminal case. The document outlines Dr. Rocchio's intended opinions on how grooming facilitates sexual abuse and why victims often delay disclosing trauma, asserting these opinions are reliable and supported by psychological literature. It distinguishes the defendant's alleged actions from 'grooming by proxy' and cites academic research to bolster the validity of the expert's claims about delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity