Calderon
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dyer
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case of Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) was decided. | 9th Cir. | View |
| 1998-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case cited: Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998). | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The court denies the defendant's request to modify a protective order that was previously entered on July 30, 2020. The court's decision is based on the original agreement between the parties, which stipulated that discovery materials provided by the government would be used solely for the defense of the current criminal case and not for any civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001735.jpg
The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019612.jpg
This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.
DOJ-OGR-00019559.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on August 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order, reaffirming that discovery materials produced by the Government must be used solely for the defense of the criminal action and not for any civil proceedings. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) and various legal precedents regarding 'good cause' for protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00019552.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against a criminal defendant's request to use discovery materials in a civil case. The Government contends there is no precedent for such use and defends the secrecy of grand jury investigations and subpoenas against the defendant's accusations of impropriety. It cites several cases to support maintaining protective orders and separating criminal and civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019441.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request to modify a previously established protective order. The defendant sought permission to use discovery materials, provided by the Government for a criminal case, in a separate civil proceeding. The court references the original protective order from July 30, 2020, which both parties had agreed to and which explicitly forbade such use, and ultimately denies the defendant's request.
DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request to modify a protective order. The court notes that on July 30, 2020, it entered a protective order, which both the defendant and the government had agreed to, stipulating that discovery materials could only be used for the defense of the current criminal case. The defendant's subsequent request to use these materials for other purposes is denied, with the court referencing the prior agreement and legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00019259.jpg
This document is a court order denying the Defendant's request to modify a protective order in a criminal case. The original order, entered on July 30, 2020, restricted the use of discovery materials provided by the Government solely for the defense of the current criminal action. The court's decision upholds this restriction, preventing the Defendant from using the documents for any other purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial due to false answers given by Juror No. 50 during jury selection. The central argument is that Maxwell does not need to prove the juror's falsehoods were deliberate, citing several legal precedents to support the claim that even honest mistakes can warrant a new trial to ensure the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The motion criticizes the government's position as a weak attempt to achieve "finality" at the expense of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing for the credibility of Juror 50 against a defendant's challenge. The filing contends that any inconsistencies in the juror's questionnaire answers should be assessed in a formal hearing, not based on public statements, and cites legal precedents suggesting jurors can make honest mistakes. It further argues that the juror's disclosure of having read about the defendant's connection to Epstein and the illogical nature of deliberately lying only to immediately risk exposure suggest the juror did not intentionally mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009005.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010362.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion regarding a defendant's motion to find a juror, Juror 50, biased. The defendant argued the juror's failure to disclose a personal history of sexual abuse during jury selection showed an inability to be impartial. The Court rejects this argument, finding that the juror's omission was due to inattention rather than a deliberate lie or perjury, and therefore denies the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010317.jpg
This legal document analyzes the conduct of Juror 50 during and after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It highlights Juror 50's public revelation of his jury service on social media and his multiple false statements to the Court regarding his impartiality and willingness to follow instructions. The document argues that these actions demonstrate Juror 50's bias and inability to serve as an unbiased juror, providing grounds for a cause challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity