E.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020996.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a grooming tactic to gain victims' trust and facilitate sexual abuse. It cites testimony from a victim named 'Jane' about receiving money and payments for lessons, and mentions promises made to another victim, 'Annie'. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the conspiracy, noting that sexual conduct occurred not only in New York and Florida but also in New Mexico and London, involving other victims like Carolyn and Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00020683.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from the SDNY regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing orders from November 2021 leading up to her trial. Key issues addressed include the logistics of transporting Maxwell from the MDC to the courthouse, security concerns, delays in Maxwell receiving legal mail, and the schedule for juror selection and peremptory strikes. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued orders requiring coordination with the US Marshals and MDC legal counsel to resolve these pre-trial issues.
DOJ-OGR-00020541.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from early November 2021. It records joint letters regarding trial length and evidence motions, motions for reconsideration filed by the defense, and significant court orders regarding hearing schedules, witness testimony, defendant transportation, and access to legal mail.
DOJ-OGR-00002329(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, presents an analysis by a 'Mr. Martin' concerning the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors. The analysis compares the demographic composition of the 'White Plains qualified wheel' (juror pool) to the eligible juror populations of the Manhattan Division and the entire Southern District of New York, finding significant disparities. This argument is being made in the context of a case involving 'Epstein's New York residence,' which is located in the Manhattan Division.
DOJ-OGR-00002323(1).jpg
This document is page 'ii' (labeled Page 3 of 13 in the PDF) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (Cases) and Statutes cited elsewhere in the filing. The citations heavily reference cases involving jury selection and fair representation (e.g., Duren v. Missouri, Taylor v. Louisiana), suggesting the main document likely involves a motion regarding jury composition or selection.
DOJ-OGR-00002254.jpg
This document is the final page (page 22) of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail (Dkt. No. 97). The document cites United States v. Raniere as legal precedent regarding the evaluation of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00002254(1).jpg
This document is the final page of a court order dated December 28, 2020, and filed on December 30, 2020. United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the renewed motion for release on bail for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002213.jpg
This legal document, part of a filing in the case against Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's case is weak and relies entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, with two key counts depending on a single witness, Minor Victim-1. The defense asserts that the case was hastily assembled only after the death of Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting a lack of substantial, pre-existing evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002213(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's case against her is weak and was assembled after Jeffrey Epstein's death. The defense contends the case rests entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, with two specific counts relying on a single witness, Minor Victim-1. The filing dismisses the government's 'additional witnesses' as irrelevant, claiming their testimony only confirms that Maxwell and Epstein interacted with minors, which proves nothing.
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
This is page 8 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (USA v. Noel and Thomas). The court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel the government to produce evidence held by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), ruling that the BOP is not part of the prosecution team for Brady disclosure purposes. The document also outlines Thomas's argument that the conduct he is charged with was rampant within the BOP and acquiesced to by leadership.
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 24, 2020, involving the prosecution of prison guards (specifically defendant Thomas) related to the events of August 9-10, 2019 (Jeffrey Epstein's suicide). The Government argues against Thomas's request for BOP records regarding staffing shortages and prior instances of falsified records, asserting that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team and therefore the Government is not obligated to search BOP files under discovery rules. The text cites legal precedents (U.S. v. Bryan, U.S. v. Volpe) to support the limitation of 'government' to only those agencies participating in the specific investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00022037.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal defense filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated April 9, 2020, regarding charges against prison guards Michael Thomas and Tova Noel. The defense argues that while Thomas is charged with falsifying logs, other supervisors who approved these logs were not charged, and points to severe staffing shortages in the SHU. The filing seeks disclosure of the Inspector General's report, arguing it is material to the defense to prove systemic failures beyond the defendants' actions.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00019449.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically a section from a motion for a stay filed on behalf of Maxwell. It outlines the applicable legal standards for staying a civil action pending the completion of a parallel criminal prosecution. The document cites several legal precedents to argue that while such a stay is an "extraordinary remedy," courts will grant one when justice requires, particularly when there is an overlap of issues between the civil and criminal cases, and lists six factors that guide the court's decision.
DOJ-OGR-00009161.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should deny the defendant's request for a post-verdict hearing and 'pre-hearing discovery' concerning juror conduct. The argument is based on legal precedent, stating that the defendant's evidence—a single anonymous sentence from a newspaper article—is inadmissible hearsay and does not meet the required standard of 'concrete allegations.' The document cites several cases to support the position that courts routinely deny such inquiries to protect the finality of verdicts and avoid the dangers of post-verdict juror scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00019873.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing from the U.S. Government, dated July 2, 2020, submitted by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss. The prosecution argues that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and, citing several legal precedents, requests that the court deny any application for bail. The document was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00010710.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that victims identified as Sarah and Elizabeth should be permitted to read their victim impact statements aloud at Maxwell's criminal sentencing. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Wilson and Kelly v. California, to support the court's authority to consider such testimony and asserts that doing so will not cause unfair prejudice to Maxwell. A footnote clarifies that Maxwell does not have the right to cross-examine victims during sentencing hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00010379.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a method of grooming victims like Jane and Annie, paying for things like lessons, school, and promising trips. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the criminal conspiracy, noting that while specific counts focused on New York and Florida, witnesses testified to sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico and London as well. The text highlights the testimony of victims, including Carolyn and Virginia Roberts, who were paid for sexualized massages.
DOJ-OGR-00009823.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues against a defense motion claiming Juror 50 was biased. The Government asserts that Juror 50's post-trial statements and negative attitude toward the defendant reflect the evidence presented during the trial, not pre-existing bias. It cites legal precedents including *United States v. Stewart* to support the argument that jurors bring subjective lived experiences to deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal standards for a post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing precedents like 'Ventura' and 'Guzman Loera.' The Court rules that it will conduct a hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false answers to Question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked about personal or family history of sexual harassment or abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00003133.jpg
This legal document is a court's discussion regarding a defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of an indictment, arguing they are multiplicitous (i.e., charge the same crime multiple times). The Court decides that the motion is premature and defers its ruling until after the trial is complete. The Court reasons that a full factual record is needed for the analysis and the issue could become moot depending on the jury's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00003112.jpg
This document is page 178 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00003112) of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 16, 2021. It is a legal memorandum discussing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 and the standards for the sufficiency of an indictment. The text cites various legal precedents (Alfonso, Resendiz-Ponce, Wey, Stringer) to argue that an indictment generally does not need to specify evidentiary details or how an offense was committed, provided it tracks the statutory language and protects against double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
This legal document, page 140 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, outlines the legal standard for a defendant to obtain a "Franks hearing" to challenge the validity of an affidavit used for probable cause. It details the three-part test a defendant must meet, requiring a "substantial preliminary showing" of inaccuracies or omissions in the affidavit that were material and made with deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. The document explains that a court must then determine the materiality of these errors by revising the affidavit to see if it still supports a finding of probable cause.
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, that discusses the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. It cites numerous federal court cases, including from the Supreme Court, to argue that suppressing evidence is a 'last resort' intended to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. The text emphasizes the 'good-faith' exception, particularly when law enforcement acts in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, suggesting that suppression is generally not warranted in such cases.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity