DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021896.jpg
This document appears to be page 19 of an appellate filing (dated Dec 2, 2024) upholding the District Court's decisions in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It addresses the court's refusal to grant a new trial based on juror misconduct (specifically regarding Juror 50) and defends the court's response to a jury note concerning Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00021891.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal ruling filed on December 2, 2024 (Case 22-1426), likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirms the District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of her indictment. The court rules that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and that the 2003 amendment to this statute was correctly applied retroactively.
DOJ-OGR-00021876.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated November 25, 2024. It formally denies Ghislaine Maxwell's petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc regarding case docket number 22-1426.
DOJ-OGR-00021875.jpg
This document is a blank court form titled 'Verified Itemized Bill of Costs' from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated September 17, 2024. It relates to the appeal case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket #: 22-1426cr), referencing the original District Court case presided over by Judge Nathan in the SDNY. The form is intended for counsel to submit costs pursuant to FRAP 39(c), though the specific fields for amounts and signatures are unfilled in this copy.
DOJ-OGR-00021874.jpg
This document is a procedural instruction sheet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the filing of a 'Bill of Costs' in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426cr). Dated September 17, 2024, it outlines the specific requirements under FRAP 39 for recovering costs, such as printing fees, following a judgment. The document lists Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Clerk Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00021867.jpg
This page is from a legal opinion (likely the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, given the citations) affirming a District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion. Maxwell argued that testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico constituted a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the original indictment, violating the Fifth Amendment. The court reviews the denial *de novo* and rejects Maxwell's argument.
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court given the 'we review de novo' language) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations. The text analyzes 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors and cites case law such as Weingarten v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00021847.jpg
This document is a single page from a larger legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 117), likely acting as a separator or cover page for a court order. It contains the header information, the single word title 'ORDER', and a Department of Justice bates stamp footer.
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
This document is page 15 (labeled 20 of 51 in the header) of a legal appellate brief filed on November 1, 2024. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) covering the 2001-2007 period should have prevented the USAO-SDNY from charging the Appellant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) for conduct between 2001-2004. The text cites legal precedents (*Annabi*, *Alessi*, *Papa*) regarding whether plea agreements bind other US Attorney Offices and argues the Appellant was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that a plea agreement made by a United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district is generally binding on other USAOs and the federal government as a whole. It cites several court cases, such as Gebbie and Van Thournout, to support this majority view, while also acknowledging contrary or more limited rulings from circuits like the Seventh and Sixth in a footnote.
DOJ-OGR-00021835.jpg
This is page 11 of a legal filing from November 2024 (Case 22-1426) arguing against a Second Circuit Court decision (U.S. v. Maxwell). The text contends that the court unfairly applied the 'Annabi' precedent to allow the SDNY to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit. The document highlights that witnesses told the OPR the agreement was intended to provide 'transactional immunity' to co-conspirators, yet Maxwell was denied discovery or a hearing on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021819.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal ruling (Case 22-1426) filed on September 17, 2024. The appellate court affirms the District Court's sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, upholding the application of a 'leadership enhancement' and the length of the sentence due to the gravity of her role in facilitating the abuse of underage girls. The page concludes the discussion on sentencing and begins the final conclusion of the document.
DOJ-OGR-00021814.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) dated September 17, 2024. It details Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' of her indictment, specifically concerning testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00021813.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It discusses the District Court's refusal to grant a new trial and specifically addresses a jury note sent during deliberations regarding Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. Footnotes address a hearing regarding Juror 50's potential misconduct and citations to the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021800.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated September 2024) summarizing the history of the Epstein and Maxwell cases. It details Epstein's Florida plea deal (NPA), specifically quoting the clause that granted immunity to potential co-conspirators Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. It also outlines the specific legal counts brought against Ghislaine Maxwell in her federal indictment, including conspiracy to entice minors and sex trafficking conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021797.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It lists the legal counsel for both the United States (Appellee) and Ghislaine Maxwell (Appellant) and begins the written opinion by Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes regarding Maxwell's appeal of her 2022 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving minors. The text details her conviction statutes and sentences of 60, 120, and 240 months imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00021795.jpg
This document is the title page of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 22-1426-cr). The case was argued on March 12, 2024, and decided on September 17, 2024, by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021794.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appearance filed on March 12, 2024, in the appellate case United States v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426). Hagan Scotten of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York officially enters the case as additional counsel, joining co-counsel Danielle R. Sassoon to represent the United States (Appellee). The document includes contact information for Scotten and bears the footer DOJ-OGR-00021794.
DOJ-OGR-00021788.jpg
This document is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 22-1426cr). The notice, dated February 29, 2024, schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side for arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00021786.jpg
This is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document schedules an oral argument for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side. It provides instructions for counsel regarding registration, remote participation options, and withdrawal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021785.jpg
This document is a court form filed on February 23, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (Document 98). It identifies attorney Diana Fabi of the firm Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C. as the counsel presenting argument on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner. The document includes standard 'Notice to the Bar' instructions regarding the recording of arguments, court reporters, and interpreter services. It bears a DOJ Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021785.
DOJ-OGR-00021779.jpg
This document is a Notice of Hearing Date from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426cr). It schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City. The notice outlines procedural rules regarding attendance, time allotment (10 minutes per side), and protocols for motions to withdraw.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity