Salmonese
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014872.jpg
This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (likely an opinion or government brief) dated December 2, 2024, related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance between the evidence presented at trial and the original indictment, citing various legal precedents (Parker, Salmonese, Dove) to support the validity of the conviction under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021005.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order (Document 657) filed on April 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and 'prejudicial variance' or 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Second Circuit cases) to define the standards for determining if a defendant was convicted of a crime different from the one charged in the indictment. The Court denies the Defendant's motion on this basis.
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a larger filing, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to define the high standard for proving such a variance, asserting that the defendant was not misled and their rights were not violated. The document concludes that, similar to a previous argument about constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts outside the scope of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021869.jpg
This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing dated September 17, 2024, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to establish the high standard required to prove such a variance and resulting prejudice. The document concludes that the evidence at trial did not prove facts different from those in the indictment, thereby refuting the defendant's claim.
DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg
This legal document, page 75 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, presents arguments defending the conviction of Maxwell. It counters Maxwell's claims by stating the jury's verdict was plausible and not based on speculation, and that there was no variance between the indictment and the trial proof regarding events in New Mexico. The document asserts Maxwell had 'fair and adequate notice' of the charges, citing the government's disclosure of an interview with the victim, Jane, weeks before the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010388.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 29, 2022, in which a court outlines the applicable law regarding constructive amendments to a grand jury indictment. The court explains that under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant can only be tried on the charges in the indictment, and details the legal standard for determining if the trial evidence or jury instructions improperly altered the "core of criminality" of the alleged crime. The court cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to support its analysis before denying the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant was not legally prejudiced regarding witness testimony. It outlines that the defense received notes on witness Jane more than three weeks before trial and that the court's decision to permit witness Kate to testify came almost two weeks after notes were received, providing ample time for preparation. The filing cites legal precedents to assert that the court did not err in its handling of limiting instructions and that any failure to request them was the defendant's own, not a basis for a prejudice claim.
DOJ-OGR-00003125.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a government response in a criminal case. The prosecution argues that evidence concerning 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible to prove a conspiracy, even though a direct charge based on her testimony is time-barred because she turned 25 before 2003. The government asserts that the charges remain timely due to the involvement of 'Minor Victim-1' and 'Minor Victim-2' and distinguishes the current case from a cited precedent (*Hsia*) by stating the alleged conduct, grooming a minor for Jeffrey Epstein, is central to the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00002956.jpg
This document is page xxi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal precedents in the format 'United States v. [Defendant]'. Each entry includes the case citation and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002678.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a court filing dated February 4, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists legal precedents (cases), statutes, and rules relied upon in the main document. Key statutes cited include 18 U.S.C. ยง 2421, 2422, and 2423, which relate to the transportation of individuals for illegal sexual activity (Mann Act) and sexual exploitation of minors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity