1st Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 550) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The Government argues regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence for impeaching a witness, specifically noting that the prior inconsistent statements come from FBI 302 reports written by agents, not the witness herself. The document cites various legal precedents to argue that if a witness admits to an inconsistency found in '3500 material' (Jencks Act material), no further extrinsic evidence is needed.
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
This legal document is a memorandum of law, likely from the prosecution, arguing for the admission of an exhibit (GX 52) into evidence. It counters a defense objection that the witness, Mr. Alessi, cannot authenticate the exhibit because he has no personal knowledge of its creation. The memorandum cites several legal precedents to support the argument that a document can be authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4) based on its distinctive characteristics or a witness's general familiarity, even without direct observation of its creation.
DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the legal standards for bail and detention, specifically addressing 'flight risk' and the burden of production. While the court acknowledges the defendant met a limited burden regarding family ties and finances, section B explicitly states that 'The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination,' implying a denial of the renewed motion for bail based on factors including the nature of the offense (involving a minor victim).
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments and case citations regarding the severance of charges and 'joinder,' specifically arguing that perjury counts should not be joined with substantive crimes if they are not sufficiently connected physically, temporally, or transactionally. The document cites precedents such as *United States v. Rivera*, *Randazzo*, and *Potamitis* to support the argument that unrelated offenses should be tried separately.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's decision to deny the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, citing the Bail Reform Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The ruling establishes a presumption in favor of detention because the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and notes that the Grand Jury indictment provides sufficient probable cause for this presumption.
DOJ-OGR-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00009056.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The document argues that Juror No. 50 falsely answered questions during jury selection (voir dire) and requests subpoenas for the juror's emails with alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes two arguments made by the defendant. First, it argues that the standard for the victim's (Carolyn's) behavior is 'undue influence,' not complete lack of voluntary action. Second, it dismisses the defendant's claim of 'double-counting' in sentencing enhancements by citing legal precedents (Watkins, Kohlmeier, Arbaugh) which establish that different guideline provisions can address different harms from the same conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010354.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell) challenge to the impartiality of Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines he did not deliberately lie to be selected, distinguishing his situation from a precedent case (Sampson) involving extensive dishonesty. The court also addresses Maxwell's argument that Juror 50 was biased due to similarities between his personal history of sexual abuse and the trial's subject matter, noting the defendant's nuanced argument for implied or inferred bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009877.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that 'Juror No. 50' committed misconduct by failing to disclose a history of child sexual abuse, which mirrors the charges against Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's comparison to other jurors who experienced minor harassment is misleading and urges the Court to investigate the claim to ensure Maxwell's right to an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's assertion that a juror's similar life experiences should automatically presume bias, requiring their removal. It cites multiple legal precedents (from the Second, First, Seventh, and other circuits) to support the position that only "extreme situations" warrant such a presumption. The document contends that similarity of experience is just one of many factors to be considered and is often insufficient on its own to justify a juror's dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00005813.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues for the admissibility of Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony regarding delayed disclosure of child sexual abuse. It counters the defendant's argument that the testimony is unreliable by citing Dr. Rocchio's qualifications, academic literature, and the legal precedent set in *United States v. Gaudet*, which authorized similar expert testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00005749.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists legal precedents, including numerous 'United States v.' cases from various circuit courts, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The table indicates the page numbers within the parent document where each authority is cited.
DOJ-OGR-00005759.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal precedents cited in the main document, including various U.S. court cases, U.S. Constitutional Amendments V and VI, and Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. The page is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00005759.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity