presiding judge
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Thomas
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Noel
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed attorney
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court proceeding | A judge sets the pretrial release conditions for Mr. Thomas and Ms. Noel, including travel restri... | Court | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Sentencing hearing | A judge is discussing the factors being considered for the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell, weighing he... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Bail hearing | An attorney presents arguments to a judge regarding bail conditions, detention, and the weight of... | Court in the Southern District | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009049.jpg
This document is page 48 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues that 'Juror No. 50' intentionally provided false answers on a jury selection questionnaire. It claims this intent is evidenced by the juror's post-verdict media appearances where he promoted himself and his status as a victim.
DOJ-OGR-00009740.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that Juror No. 50's claim of not remembering a questionnaire question about personal experiences with sexual assault is not credible. The filing cites the questionnaire's explicit purpose of ensuring impartiality and points to the juror's post-verdict media interviews about his own victimhood as evidence that his omissions were intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00005280.jpg
This document is Page 4 of 40 from a court filing (Document 365) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 22, 2021. It contains preliminary instructions for prospective jurors regarding a questionnaire, emphasizing the legal requirement to provide truthful answers under oath. The text explicitly prohibits jurors from discussing the case with anyone, using social media (citing Facebook and Twitter) to communicate about it, or conducting independent research.
DOJ-OGR-00008725.jpg
This document is page 19 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 19, 2021. It contains Instruction No. 12 regarding 'Conspiracy and Substantive Counts,' explaining the legal distinction between agreeing to commit a crime (conspiracy) and actually committing the crime (substantive). The text outlines that the jury will be instructed on substantive Counts Two, Four, and Six before conspiracy Counts One, Three, and Five.
Next conference date
The presiding judge asks if Judge Torres has set the next conference date. MR. ROOS confirms the date is November 25, 2019.
Plea for leniency in sentencing for an unnamed female def...
The author, James Hollomon, writes to the judge to advocate for a lenient sentence for a female defendant he knew personally. He attests to her good character, claims she has learned her lesson, and states she will dedicate her life to positive social causes like ocean cleanup, referencing a past "hellish fate re Epstein".
Adjournment
Adjourning proceedings until the following morning and noting the jury charge will happen tomorrow.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity