Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty.

Organization
Mentions
6
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
3
Also known as:
Superior Ct. of California
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses a motion by Juror 50 to obtain his own jury questionnaire and voir dire testimony transcript. The defendant opposes the request, framing it as a 'discovery request' that would prejudice an 'investigation' into the juror's conduct. The Government argues that Juror 50 is not a defendant seeking discovery and that the privacy concerns for sealing such documents do not apply to the juror himself.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg

This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in 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 (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.

Legal filing (table of authorities)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009538.jpg

This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 617) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that 'Juror 50's' motion to intervene constitutes a discovery request, clarifying that the juror is seeking access to his own questionnaire which he swore under penalty of perjury. The filing argues that the motion is a judicial document that should not remain sealed, noting the defendant's arguments regarding privacy and potential prejudice lack merit.

Legal filing / court document (page 2 of 3)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search