Justice Brennan
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Justice Blackmun
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Justice Marshall
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge David Bazelon
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Justice Marshall
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McDonough Court
|
Concurred with commented on |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Meeting to discuss the constitutionality of the death penalty | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal case discussion | The document discusses the concurring opinions from the legal case McDonough regarding juror hone... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg
This document is Page 34 of 66 from a legal filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments concerning juror misconduct and bias, citing precedents such as *United States v. Langford*, *United States v. Stewart*, and *Clark v. United States* to establish that a new trial may be warranted if a juror provides false answers during voir dire. The text emphasizes Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards for determining when a juror's dishonesty invalidates a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009032.jpg
This document, a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, discusses legal precedent related to juror bias and false answers during voir dire, citing United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. It emphasizes that the focus in motions for new trial in such situations should be on juror bias and prejudice, and that factors like honesty and intent are relevant to determining actual bias. The document also notes that the terms "deliberate" and "intentional" are used interchangeably in the caselaw.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009726.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standards for determining juror bias based on false or misleading answers during voir dire. It cites precedents from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, such as McDonough, Langford, and Clark v. United States. The key argument presented is that a juror who intentionally lies to be selected is not a legitimate juror, and such dishonesty can be grounds for a new trial, outlining the specific tests used in the Second Circuit to prove such bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009725.jpg
This document page is from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding juror misconduct and the standard for obtaining a new trial, citing the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*. The text quotes concurring opinions by Justices Blackmun and Brennan to argue that a juror's intentional dishonesty is not strictly required to order a post-trial hearing on bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
This document is page 31 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments regarding a motion for a new trial, specifically discussing the legal standards for juror misconduct and false answers during voir dire (jury selection). The text cites precedents such as United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017676.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, seemingly submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (indicated by the Bates stamp). The text provides a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), asserting that criminal defendants do not have the right to compel the disclosure of a victim's identity, address, or private records (such as mental health records) prior to trial. It cites various legal precedents and specifically acknowledges the work of victims' rights litigator Wendy Murphy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017247.jpg
This document appears to be a page (p. 160) from a manuscript or memoir, dated April 2, 2012, in the header. It narrates the author's time as a law clerk (likely Alan Dershowitz) for Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1960s. The text details the legal research into the constitutionality of the death penalty, discussions with Justice Goldberg about the political risks of opposing it, and a specific meeting with Justice Brennan to present arguments based on the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause and racial disparities in execution statistics. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017155.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz given the biographical details) recounting a private conversation with Judge Bazelon. The text discusses the hidden influence J. Edgar Hoover held over liberal Supreme Court Justices, specifically alleging that Justices Goldberg and Marshall cooperated with Hoover's anti-communist agenda to secure their appointments. It further alleges Hoover possessed blackmail material on both men, specifically covering up a relationship between Goldberg and a potential Russian spy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017133.jpg
This document is a page from a manuscript (Chapter 3) written by Alan (likely Dershowitz), dated April 2, 2012. It details the author's experience at Yale Law School around 1962, specifically focused on the fierce competition for Supreme Court clerkships and the specific biases of various Justices. The narrative highlights the author's conflict with Professor Fred Rodel over a men-only seminar location and his mentorship under Professor Alex Bickel.
Memorandum on Death Penalty
Narrator presented research on 'cruel and unusual' punishment and racial disparity in executions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity