Williams
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-11 | N/A | Arrival of 10 new inmates | Intake | View |
| 2019-07-07 | N/A | New admission of inmate Williams (#76319-054) via self-surrender. | MCC New York | View |
| 2018-09-26 | Court ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Williams. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2010-07-05 | N/A | Trash Pull Operation | 358 El Brillo and Palm Beac... | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Williams. | N/A | View |
| 1996-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case Haynes v. Williams. | 10th Cir. | View |
| 1984-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case citation for Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). | N/A | View |
| 1983-01-01 | Legal case | State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983) | N.J. Super. App. Div. | View |
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.
DOJ-OGR-00003009.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the admissibility of certain evidence in the case against Epstein. It cites multiple legal precedents establishing that proof of lawful conduct on some occasions is irrelevant to disproving a specific criminal charge. The document applies this to the Epstein case, asserting that a prior investigation's findings about his conduct in the 2000s are irrelevant to the current charges from 1994-1997, and notes that two key victims were only interviewed for the first time in late 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00002959.jpg
This document is page xxiv of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations with corresponding page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The majority of the cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and one corporation.
DOJ-OGR-00002943.jpg
This document is page 9 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations alphabetically from 'Miller v. Pate' to 'SEC v. TheStreet.com'. Each entry includes the case name, its legal reporter citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00032312.jpg
This Palm Beach Police Department incident report details two primary investigative actions. First, a 'trash pull' operation at Jeffrey Epstein's residence (358 El Brillo) yielded documents and correspondence belonging to Epstein. Second, following a sighting of Epstein in town, detectives coordinated with the State Attorney's Office to interview Haley Robson at her home in Loxahatchee regarding her involvement with Epstein and girls brought to his house; Robson voluntarily agreed to accompany police to the station for questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00005792.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for admitting expert testimony in court. It argues that a district court has broad discretion in determining the reliability of such testimony and that it must also be relevant, concerning matters beyond the understanding of an average juror. The document cites several precedents, focusing on cases where courts admitted expert testimony on the psychological dynamics between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes, such as the 'pimp-prostitute relationship' and 'trauma bonding'.
DOJ-OGR-00005791.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, which discusses the legal standards for the admissibility of expert testimony. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Felder and Kumho Tire, to argue that an expert's testimony can be based on personal experience and that it is generally the jury's role, not the court's, to resolve conflicting expert opinions. The document concludes by asserting that the rejection of expert testimony should be an exception.
DOJ-OGR-00005790.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 7 of document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for admitting expert testimony under the 'Daubert' framework, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and numerous precedent cases. The text explains that a court must first assess an expert's qualifications and then determine if their testimony is both relevant and reliable, detailing several criteria for establishing reliability.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021353.jpg
This document appears to be a page from an academic work or historical analysis included as an exhibit in a House Oversight investigation (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021353). The text analyzes the theology of Jonathan Edwards, specifically his sermon 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,' connecting his religious views with the Great Awakening and the scientific principles of Isaac Newton. It discusses the metaphorical relationship between human wickedness, God's restraining power, and the natural order.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity