["Judge"]

Person
Mentions
0
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
0

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.
No documents found for this entity.
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
5
Total
5

Request for a sidebar

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["Judge"]

Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10

Argument regarding a split jury verdict for Mr. Parse

From: Mr. Shechtman
To: ["Judge"]

Mr. Shechtman argues against the government's assertion that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. He contends that the juror was a partisan who couldn't follow instructions, and the resulting split verdict was due to her inability to persuade other jurors, not a benefit to his client.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-02-24

Argument regarding a split jury verdict for Mr. Parse

From: Mr. Shechtman
To: ["Judge"]

Mr. Shechtman argues against the government's assertion that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. He contends that the juror was a partisan who couldn't follow instructions, and the resulting split verdict was due to her inability to persuade other jurors, not a benefit to his client.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-02-24

Argument regarding opposing counsel's failure to investigate

From: Unnamed Counsel
To: ["Judge"]

An attorney argues before a judge that the opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice ('sandbagging') but rather carelessness and ineptitude, which constitutes prejudice in the case.

Court transcript
2022-02-24

Jail conditions and need for court supervision of investi...

From: Unnamed speaker
To: ["Judge"]

An unnamed speaker addresses a judge, arguing for the court's involvement in an investigation. The speaker highlights the dreadful conditions of the local jail, affecting Jeffrey Epstein and others, comparing them unfavorably to Guantanamo, and stresses the importance of public confidence in the justice system.

Court testimony/argument
2019-09-03

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity