Biaggi
PersonRelationship Network
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | The case of In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 491–92 is cited as an example of the 'Special Circumstances... | Second Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00015144.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a court filing from August 11, 2025, discusses the rule of secrecy for grand jury matters as established in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). It outlines the specific, narrow exceptions that permit disclosure to government personnel, other grand juries, and law enforcement, or by court order for judicial proceedings and various government investigations. The document then introduces the 'Special Circumstances' Doctrine, developed by the Second Circuit, which allows for disclosure in cases of unusual historical or public interest, citing several precedent cases.
DOJ-OGR-00015094.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing submitted on August 5, 2025, by the defense firm Markus/Moss in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, distinguishing Maxwell's case from *In re Biaggi* and rejecting a Florida public records case as irrelevant to federal Rule 6(e) protections. The defense concludes that there is no precedent for unsealing such transcripts in an ongoing matter and requests the motion be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00015039.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from July 18, 2025, argues for the release of grand jury records related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that while grand jury proceedings are traditionally secret, this secrecy is not absolute and can be overridden in 'special circumstances' of significant public and historical interest. The document asserts that the Epstein matter, involving 'the most infamous pedophile in American history,' qualifies as such a circumstance, making the grand jury records 'critical pieces' of national history that should be made public.
DOJ-OGR-00000747.jpg
This legal memorandum is submitted by the Government in response to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. The Government outlines the legal framework for such a release, citing a 'Circuit split' on the issue and precedent from the Second Circuit, while emphasizing its duty to protect victims. It also references a prior, unsuccessful attempt to unseal similar transcripts related to Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00015158.jpg
This legal document discusses the timing of grand jury proceedings as a factor in deciding whether to release information to the public. It contrasts the recent case involving Maxwell and Epstein, where victims are still alive and the events are relatively recent, with historical precedents where the passage of time has diminished the need for secrecy. The argument suggests that the circumstances of the Maxwell case, particularly its recency, weigh against the release of grand jury materials.
DOJ-OGR-00003138.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, arguing against the misuse of a 'bill of particulars'. It cites numerous court cases to establish the legal precedent that a bill of particulars is not a tool for the defense to compel the Government to disclose its evidence, witnesses, or trial strategy. The document asserts that such a bill is only warranted when an indictment is so vague that it prevents the defendant from preparing a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in the case United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of the defendant's (Schulte) challenges regarding jury selection, specifically concerning the 'fair cross-section' requirement of the Sixth Amendment and an 'Equal Protection' challenge under the Fifth Amendment. The Court dismisses arguments regarding the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors, citing a lack of discriminatory intent and noting that a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel actually increased minority representation rather than diminishing it.
DOJ-OGR-00002835.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on August 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text analyzes a Sixth Amendment challenge regarding jury underrepresentation, specifically examining the 'absolute disparity method' for African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master jury wheel. The Court concludes that the statistical disparities (1.25% and 1.15%) are within tolerated legal limits based on Second Circuit precedents and that Schulte has failed to meet the necessary burden for his claim.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity