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 |
DOJ-OGR-00009118.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The attorneys contend that "Juror 50" exhibited both implied and inferred bias due to past experiences and media statements, rendering them unfit to serve despite claims of impartiality. The filing cites legal precedents, including phrases from Chief Justice Marshall, to argue that the juror should have been disqualified to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009045.jpg
This document is page 44 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'inferable bias' in jury selection, citing precedents such as *United States v. Torres*, *Daugerdas*, and *Greer*. It specifically discusses a scenario where a juror might be dismissed if their past experiences (such as structuring cash transactions) are too similar to the incidents giving rise to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009038.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from February 24, 2022, defines and analyzes the concept of "implied bias" as a basis for challenging potential jurors. It cites numerous legal precedents to explain that implied bias is presumed by law, regardless of a juror's stated impartiality, especially when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated. The document provides examples from past cases, such as jurors who were victims of crimes similar to those in the case they were hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00010424.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell must be sentenced under the 2003 Guidelines rather than the harsher 2004 Guidelines. It asserts that applying the 2004 Guidelines would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause unless a jury, not the judge, found that her criminal conduct continued past November 1, 2004. Since the jury made no such finding, the court is bound to use the earlier guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00010421.jpg
This document is page 4 of a 29-page legal filing (Document 662) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 15, 2022. It is a table of authorities listing various court cases, statutes such as the 'Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998', and other sources like the Merriam-Webster dictionary and United States Sentencing Guidelines. The page numbers where these authorities are cited within the main document are also provided.
DOJ-OGR-00010347.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court ruling (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The text addresses the legal standard for 'Actual Bias' and specifically rules that the record does not support a finding that 'Juror 50' was biased. The Court found Juror 50's testimony credible, noting that he affirmed his personal history of sexual abuse would not impact his impartiality or ability to assess witness credibility, rejecting the Defendant's (Maxwell) argument that his responses were merely self-serving.
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010337.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 653) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the legal standards for a 'McDonough inquiry' regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically discussing whether a juror deliberately concealed truth during voir dire. The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(1), emphasizing that jurors generally cannot testify about deliberations to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00010313.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's defense by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Juror 50 was biased and should have been struck from the jury. The filing asserts that the juror's failure to disclose his history of sexual abuse, coupled with his incredible explanations for false statements on a questionnaire, demonstrates a bias that his own assurances of impartiality cannot overcome. The document cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the claim that juror bias must be determined from circumstances, not the juror's self-serving statements.
DOJ-OGR-00010311.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 was incapable of being impartial due to his own past trauma of childhood sexual abuse, which was highly similar to that of the victims in the case. The filing cites multiple legal precedents where jurors were dismissed or new trials were granted for failing to disclose such biasing personal experiences. The document further contends that Juror 50's decision to speak to the international press after the trial to 'tell his story' demonstrates his deep identification with the victims and confirms his bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010305.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing dated March 15, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's motion for a new trial, asserting that Juror 50 was fair and impartial despite disclosing past sexual abuse. The filing contends the defendant failed to meet the 'McDonough test' requirements to prove juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
This legal document analyzes the credibility of Juror 50, concluding he should not be struck for cause. It argues that his prior experience with sexual abuse did not impede his ability to be a fair juror and that his subsequent press interviews were a result of naivety, not deception. The document cites the juror's own testimony and demeanor to support the claim that his failure to disclose information was an inadvertent error.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009829.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, discusses the legal standard for dismissing a juror based on "inferred bias." It cites several precedents, including *Torres*, *Greer*, and *Ploof*, to establish that such a dismissal is at the discretion of the trial court and requires a high standard of proof, typically developed during voir dire. The text argues that the court would not have struck Juror 50 for inferred bias based on a hypothetical disclosure of sexual abuse, and distinguishes the defendant's reliance on the *Torres* case, where a juror was struck for cause due to involvement in structuring cash deposits.
DOJ-OGR-00009827.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the issue of juror bias in sexual abuse cases. The author argues against a mandatory presumption of bias for jurors who are survivors of sexual abuse, citing legal precedents like State v. Ashfar and Torres. The document asserts that the court correctly conducted targeted inquiries into jurors' ability to be impartial, rather than automatically striking them, noting that a contrary rule would disqualify a large portion of the jury pool.
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-00009825.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against excusing 'Juror 50' for implied bias. It heavily cites Second Circuit precedent, which maintains a 'narrow' view on the matter, requiring more than just similar personal experiences or occupational relationships to presume bias. The document asserts that the circumstances of Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification established by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009821.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 643) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains the Government's legal argument arguing that the Defendant's claims regarding juror bias are unpersuasive. The text defines 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias, citing precedents such as United States v. Torres and Smith v. Phillips to argue that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in a post-trial context.
DOJ-OGR-00009810.jpg
This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's motion for a new trial. It cites legal precedent establishing a high bar for granting new trials and uses statements made by 'Juror 50' to The Daily Mail to demonstrate that the jury's deliberations were thorough, methodical, and proper. The government contends that the juror's account shows the verdict was based on evidence and not external pressures or improper considerations.
DOJ-OGR-00009737.jpg
This document is page 45 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Inferred bias' and 'Actual bias' in jurors, citing the precedent case 'Torres' extensively. It argues that bias should be inferred when a juror's past experiences or conduct closely approximate that of the defendant, implying this legal standard applies to the current case (likely referring to Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial).
DOJ-OGR-00009729.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that defines and discusses the concept of "implied bias" in the context of jury selection. It cites several legal precedents (Torres, Haynes, Sampson, etc.) to explain that implied bias is presumed by law and is determined by the juror's circumstances, not their stated ability to be impartial. The text highlights that bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated, providing examples from cases involving murder and burglary.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
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