Torres
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Judge defendant historical |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Trial of United States v. Torres where a juror was dismissed for prior involvement in structuring... | District Court | View |
| 2021-06-17 | N/A | Remote Status Conference via videoconferencing software. | Remote/Virtual (SDNY) | View |
| 2021-05-13 | Court ruling | A ruling was made in the case United States v. Torres. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-01-01 | N/A | Filing of Nolle Prosequi dismissing the case. | New York | View |
| 2020-09-10 | N/A | Status and/or Scheduling Conference | Videoconference (New York, NY) | View |
| 2020-06-09 | N/A | Torres Order on Thomas Discovery Motion issued (based on attachment filename) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-11-25 | N/A | Status Conference in US v. Noel and Thomas | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 1990-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 | 2d Cir. | View |
EFTA00035056.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York dated August 2, 2019, covering activities from August 1, 2019. It highlights significant security concerns, specifically unsecured food slots in Unit 5-South due to tampering or malfunction, which posed a 'grave safety and security risk' aggravated by severe staff shortages. The report also details inmate movements, including admissions, releases, and placements into the Special Housing Unit (SHU), and notes one redacted inmate (likely Jeffrey Epstein based on context/timeline) on psychological observation with an inmate companion.
EFTA00028136.pdf
This document is an automatic email notification from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated January 26, 2021. It confirms the filing of an 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance' on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell in the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case Number 21-58). The notice was electronically mailed to recipients at the law firm Cohen Gresser.
EFTA00025550.pdf
This document is an email dated June 10, 2021, sent by an unnamed Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York. The subject is 'Joint/Separate' and it includes two attachments referencing legal motions and orders from 2020 involving a party named 'Thomas' and an order by 'Torres' (likely Judge Analisa Torres).
EFTA00018230.pdf
This document is an automated email notification from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case Number 21-770). Dated April 5, 2021, it notifies recipients that a document filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell—specifically an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance—was marked as a 'DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT'. The notification includes technical details such as file paths and electronic stamps, while the recipient list is redacted.
EFTA00017757.pdf
This document contains a roster of inmates and their corresponding registration numbers for various housing tiers (L, G, H, J, K, M). Jeffrey Epstein (Inmate 76318-054) is listed as being housed in L-Tier. The document serves as a snapshot of inmate housing assignments, likely within the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York.
EFTA00015723.pdf
This document is a Notice of Docket Activity from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit regarding the case United States v. Maxwell (Case No. 21-770), dated April 5, 2021. It notifies attorneys of record, including David Oscar Markus and Bobbi C. Sternheim, that a 'Defective Document' (Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance) was filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The document includes standard PACER warnings and technical metadata regarding the file transaction.
EFTA00009879.pdf
This document is an email thread from April 19, 2021, among staff at the US Attorney's Office (USANYS) forwarding a Notice of Docket Activity from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The notice confirms the filing of a 'Reply to Opposition' regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for pretrial release (bail) in the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case 21-770).
EFTA00009832.pdf
This document is an electronic Notice of Docket Activity from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated April 15, 2021. It confirms the filing of a Certificate of Service regarding a motion by attorney Christian R. Everdell to withdraw as appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell in case 21-58. The notice lists recipients including Cohen Gresser LLP and redacted Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
EFTA00009827.pdf
This document is an automated Notice of Docket Activity from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, dated April 13, 2021. It confirms that an 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance' was filed on behalf of the Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Case Number 21-58). The document lists recipients of the electronic notice, though most names and email addresses are redacted except for Tammy Torres.
DOJ-OGR-00021060.jpg
This document is page xii of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court cases and federal statutes (U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code) that are cited as legal precedent or authority within the main document, along with the corresponding page numbers where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00020970.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis concluding that Juror 50 is neither impliedly nor inferably biased against the Defendant. The court reasons that the juror's personal experience of sexual abuse is insufficient to infer partiality and that, based on the voir dire of other jurors, it is unlikely the Defendant would have successfully challenged the juror for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00020969.jpg
This legal document, page 26 of a court filing, provides a detailed legal analysis of the concepts of "implied bias" and "inferred bias" in the context of juror partiality. It distinguishes between the two, defining implied bias as a conclusive presumption for extreme cases and inferred bias as a discretionary finding by the trial court based on a juror's responses. The document relies heavily on precedents from cases like McCoy, Greer, and Torres to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00020967.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a claim of 'actual bias' against Juror 50. The Court finds Juror 50's sworn testimony to be credible, concluding that his personal history of sexual abuse would not impede his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that the juror's assurances were 'self-serving', citing the juror's consistent and forthright demeanor during both a hearing and voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021769.jpg
This legal document argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because the court failed to explore potential bias in a seated juror (Juror 50). The filing draws an analogy to the case of Nieves, asserting that the court's refusal to investigate the juror's background related to child sexual abuse—a central theme in Maxwell's case due to her association with Epstein—deprived the defense of the opportunity to challenge the juror for cause. The document contends this failure is particularly significant given the pervasive community bias against those accused of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00021766.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the District Court abused its discretion in the case against Maxwell. The argument focuses on the court's handling of Juror 50, whose failure to provide truthful answers during voir dire and whose personal life experiences mirrored trial testimony, should have been grounds for a challenge for cause due to unexplored potential bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021747.jpg
This document is page 5 (labeled 'iv') of a legal filing, specifically a 'Table of Authorities' listing case precedents. It belongs to Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2023. The page lists various United States v. [Defendant] cases along with their citations and the page numbers within the main brief where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021723.jpg
This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated June 29, 2023, that outlines the legal framework for challenging jurors for cause. It details the different types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—and cites several U.S. court cases to define these categories and establish the criteria for their application. The text also briefly mentions the possibility of a post-verdict hearing for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00009150.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the legal standard for 'Inferred Bias' in jurors. It argues that even if 'Juror 50' had disclosed a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, the Court would not have automatically dismissed him for cause without further questioning to establish actual partiality. The text cites precedents like *Torres* and *Greer* to support the trial court's discretion in these matters.
DOJ-OGR-00009148.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses the legal standard for juror bias in sexual abuse cases. The author argues against a mandatory presumption of bias for jurors who have experienced sexual abuse, distinguishing the current case from a New Hampshire state decision (State v. Ashfar). The document asserts that the court correctly conducted targeted follow-up inquiries to determine impartiality rather than automatically striking such jurors, which is consistent with the law in the circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg
This legal document argues against the automatic presumption of juror bias when a juror has engaged in conduct similar to the defendant's. It cites multiple court cases from various circuits (First, Second, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth) to support the position that juror removal is reserved for "extreme situations" and that a finding of bias often depends on a combination of factors, not just a similarity of experience. The document distinguishes cases cited by the defendant, arguing they are either inapposite or involve unique, egregious facts not present in the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009146.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against a finding of implied bias for 'Juror 50'. It outlines the Second Circuit's established 'narrow' view on the matter, citing multiple precedents where the court refused to presume bias based on occupational relationships or personal experiences without a showing of actual prejudice. The document asserts that the current circumstances involving Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification set by the Second Circuit.
Application for Property Release
Request for an Order mandating the release of the firearm and all other property surrendered to the NYPD as a condition of bail.
United States v. Noel and Thomas, 19 Cr. 830 (AT)
Government response opposing a six-month adjournment of the trial date but accepting a brief adjournment.
Request to Adjourn Trial Date
Requesting delay of trial from April 2020 to October 2020 due to discovery volume.
Request for adjournment
Defendants' letters requesting at least a six-month adjournment of the trial date.
United States v. Noel and Thomas, 19 Cr. 830 (AT)
Submission of a proposed protective order with the consent of defense counsel.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity