Martinez-Salazar
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 | United States Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009197.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing concerning Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's alleged false answers necessitate a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent, and that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to a full adversarial hearing, not the narrow one proposed by the government. The filing draws parallels to the United States v. Daugerdas case to support its claim for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The filing refutes the government's arguments concerning 'finality' and the 'disfavor' of new trial motions. It asserts that the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated, citing legal precedents that establish the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring the conviction to be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00009876.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's presence, due to alleged false answers and bias, requires a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent in 'United States v. Martinez-Salazar'. The filing asserts that the government's proposed narrow hearing would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights and argues that precedent from 'United States v. Daugerdas' supports her entitlement to a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity