| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Denial of Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | District Court's response to a jury note | N/A | View |
| N/A | Appeal | Appeal addressing five questions regarding Maxwell's prosecution and sentence | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Post-Trial Hearing, which the filing alleges the District Court conducted improperly. | N/A | View |
This document is page 3 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell. It identifies the legal counsel for both the prosecution (Appellee) and the defense (Appellant), and summarizes that Maxwell is appealing her June 29, 2022, conviction and sentencing by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on charges including conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor.
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426. It outlines the arguments for an appeal on behalf of 'Maxwell', alleging multiple errors by the District Court, including the handling of 'Juror 50' in a post-trial hearing, constructively amending the indictment, and applying an incorrect sentencing guideline. The filing seeks to have the sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
This legal document details the District Court's decision, specifically Judge Nathan's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Judge Nathan's ruling was based on her assessment of Juror 50's testimony during a hearing, where she found his answers credible and concluded that his personal experiences did not compromise his impartiality, and that he would not have been struck for cause.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity