| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-14 | N/A | Bail denied in US v. Medina | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | A case involving a defendant named Esposito, who was alleged to be a senior ranking member of org... | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Esposito case hearing | Court | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal ruling | Judge Marrero ruled in the Esposito case relating to an alleged member of organized crime. | a courthouse | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal ruling | Judge Marrero ruled in the Esposito case, which related to an alleged member of organized crime. | this courthouse | View |
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is arguing a point by citing past high-profile cases like Madoff, Dreier, and Esposito. The judge interrupts to question the relevance of these precedents, specifically asking if those defendants had substantial international connections, which distinguishes them from the current case. Mr. Cohen admits they did not, highlighting that the current defendant's foreign ties are a key point of contention.
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The text captures an oral argument by the defense counsel advocating for the defendant's release on bail by citing various legal precedents (Esposito, Madoff, Dreier, Deutsch, Conway, and Mattis). The argument highlights that defendants in cases involving organized crime, massive financial fraud, sex crimes, and even violence (Molotov cocktail) were previously granted bail under strict conditions.
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, where an attorney, Mr. Cohen, references past high-profile cases (Madoff, Dreier, Esposito) to support his arguments. The presiding judge questions the relevance of these precedents, specifically asking if those defendants had substantial international connections. Mr. Cohen concedes that they did not, highlighting a key factual distinction from the current case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity