Dove
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Dove, 884 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2018) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014873.jpg
This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.
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-00014870.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by allowing testimony about a sexual abuse incident in New Mexico, claiming this constituted a constructive amendment to her indictment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The appellate court is reviewing this claim and affirms the District Court's denial, outlining the legal standards for what constitutes a constructive amendment.
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-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-00021817.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.
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-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-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-00021655.jpg
This document is page vii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal cases with the United States as the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation (including the court and year), and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity