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-00021778.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated December 11, 2023, regarding the case of 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to this legal matter has been changed. It provides a phone number for any inquiries related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021773.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, filed July 27, 2023) arguing for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The text specifically attacks the credibility of 'Juror 50,' alleging he gave intentionally false statements under oath regarding his own history of sexual abuse during the jury questionnaire process. It cites legal precedents (McDonough, Jones v. Cooper) to argue that actual or implied bias warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021768.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the defense was denied a fair opportunity to expose juror bias during a post-verdict hearing. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Colombo and U.S. v. Greer, to define the constitutional duty of the court to allow for the discovery of bias. The document outlines three types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—to support the proposition that sufficient fact-finding is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021763.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (likely an appeal brief in the Ghislaine Maxwell case) dated July 27, 2023. It argues that Juror 50 provided false answers regarding his history of sexual abuse during jury selection and gave contradictory explanations for these falsehoods (e.g., being tired, definitions of family). The text criticizes the Court for accepting these falsehoods as an 'inadvertent mistake' and for refusing to inquire further into Juror 50's post-trial media interviews or allegations regarding a second juror.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
This document is a page from the Table of Contents (page ii) of a legal appeal filed on July 27, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding procedural errors by the District Court, specifically concerning the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding bias and the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The page specifically references Case 22-1426.
DOJ-OGR-00021731.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal appellate brief filed on June 29, 2023, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance in the trial, asserting that the jury did not convict Maxwell solely based on the transport of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico, but rather on intentions to violate New York law. It cites various legal precedents regarding 'variance' and 'constructive amendment' in indictments.
DOJ-OGR-00021730.jpg
This legal document, page 70 of a filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the applicable law regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'variance' in criminal indictments. It cites several precedents, including United States v. Khalupsky and United States v. D'Amelio, to define the conditions under which trial evidence or jury instructions improperly alter the original charges brought by a grand jury. The document distinguishes between a constructive amendment, which modifies the essential elements of the offense, and a variance, where the indictment's terms are unchanged but the evidence proves different facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.
DOJ-OGR-00021714.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, discussing the testimony of Juror 50 regarding his failure to disclose past sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. Juror 50 explains that he answered 'no' to questions about family members accused of abuse because he no longer considered his abuser (a stepbrother) family, and that he rushed through the questionnaire due to personal distractions and a belief he wouldn't be selected. The text notes that because of his negative answers, he was not asked follow-up questions by Judge Nathan during oral voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021713.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) detailing the procedural history of a hearing concerning 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes how Judge Nathan ordered a hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to answer jury selection questions truthfully regarding past sexual abuse. The document notes that on March 8, 2022, Juror 50 testified under immunity and admitted that his answers to specific questions (25 and 48) were inaccurate.
DOJ-OGR-00021711.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discussing the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically addressing how potential jurors with past experiences of sexual abuse were handled. It notes that defense counsel did not strike jurors who disclosed such history but affirmed their impartiality, citing specific examples of disclosures. The text transitions to a specific discussion regarding 'Juror 50' and their questionnaire responses to Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00021708.jpg
This document is page 61 of a legal brief filed on June 29, 2023 (Case 22-1426), likely by the government in response to an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that case law cited by Maxwell regarding the 'essential ingredient' test and statutes of limitations (specifically Bridges, Scharton, and Noveck) is distinguishable and inapplicable to her case involving sexual abuse of a child (18 U.S.C. § 3283). It asserts that Congress intended a broader application for child sexual abuse statutes compared to the fraud statutes discussed in the cited cases.
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
DOJ-OGR-00021703.jpg
This document is page 43 (PDF page 56) of a government legal brief filed on June 29, 2023, in the appeal case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues against Maxwell's claim that Counts Three and Four do not constitute offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child because no completed sex act occurred. The government argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3509(k), the definition of sexual abuse is broader and includes employment, persuasion, and enticement.
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on June 29, 2023. It argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the statute of limitations under the PROTECT Act. The text asserts that Congress rejected a specific retroactivity clause not to limit the Act's scope entirely, but to avoid unconstitutional results (reviving time-barred crimes), while still intending to cover past conduct where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00021668.jpg
This page from a 2023 court filing details the sexual abuse of two victims, 'Kate' and Annie Farmer. It describes how Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated Epstein's abuse of Kate in Palm Beach by providing a schoolgirl outfit and normalizing the encounter, and how Epstein groomed Annie Farmer at his Manhattan townhouse before she was sent to his New Mexico ranch in 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
DOJ-OGR-00021646.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) recording the final moments of a hearing involving Ms. Maxwell. The Judge clarifies the fine guidelines ($20,000 to $200,000 per count), thanks the counsel, the victims who provided statements, and the government before adjourning the session.
DOJ-OGR-00021644.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. During the proceeding, Maxwell's attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that Maxwell be designated to the BOP women's facility in Danbury and enrolled in the FIT (Female Integrated Treatment) program to address trauma. The Court agrees to make this recommendation and subsequently grants the government's motion, presented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight.
DOJ-OGR-00021643.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that a bequest in a will mentioned by the court is 'unactualized' and Maxwell has received nothing. The Court acknowledges this but concludes Maxwell has 'additional assets' sufficient to pay the fine and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021639.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing hearing. The judge discusses the difficult conditions at the MDC during the pandemic, acknowledging they were harsh for all inmates, and notes Maxwell's specific security risks as a high-profile sex offender. However, the judge explicitly rejects the defense's argument that Maxwell was singled out for uniquely harsh treatment compared to other inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00021638.jpg
This document is a page from a sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge is discussing sentencing factors, noting her age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, and the government's admission that she is not a continuing danger, while balancing this against her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity.' The text also references mitigation arguments regarding her difficult family history (overbearing father, death of brother) and her charitable works and tutoring of inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00021636.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing included in an appeal appendix) dated June 29, 2023. The text details the abuse of a victim named Carolyn, stating that Ghislaine Maxwell exploited Carolyn's prior trauma (abuse by a grandfather) to groom her. It explicitly states Maxwell personally touched Carolyn sexually at age 14 and paid her for massages. The speaker (likely the judge) notes that Maxwell and Epstein used this 'playbook' on multiple underage girls.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity