Wood
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Wagner Equip. Co.
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1936-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 | United States Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a motion or a judicial opinion, dated February 5, 2016. It outlines the legal standards for a 'motion to reconsider' in federal court, citing various precedents. The text explains that while not formally recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, district courts have inherent discretionary authority to reconsider non-final orders, but the scope for doing so is narrow and limited to specific grounds such as new law, new evidence, or correcting clear error.
DOJ-OGR-00020969.jpg
This legal document, page 26 of a court filing, provides a detailed legal analysis of the concepts of "implied bias" and "inferred bias" in the context of juror partiality. It distinguishes between the two, defining implied bias as a conclusive presumption for extreme cases and inferred bias as a discretionary finding by the trial court based on a juror's responses. The document relies heavily on precedents from cases like McCoy, Greer, and Torres to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00009038.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from February 24, 2022, defines and analyzes the concept of "implied bias" as a basis for challenging potential jurors. It cites numerous legal precedents to explain that implied bias is presumed by law, regardless of a juror's stated impartiality, especially when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated. The document provides examples from past cases, such as jurors who were victims of crimes similar to those in the case they were hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00009821.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 643) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains the Government's legal argument arguing that the Defendant's claims regarding juror bias are unpersuasive. The text defines 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias, citing precedents such as United States v. Torres and Smith v. Phillips to argue that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in a post-trial context.
DOJ-OGR-00009737.jpg
This document is page 45 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Inferred bias' and 'Actual bias' in jurors, citing the precedent case 'Torres' extensively. It argues that bias should be inferred when a juror's past experiences or conduct closely approximate that of the defendant, implying this legal standard applies to the current case (likely referring to Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial).
DOJ-OGR-00009729.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that defines and discusses the concept of "implied bias" in the context of jury selection. It cites several legal precedents (Torres, Haynes, Sampson, etc.) to explain that implied bias is presumed by law and is determined by the juror's circumstances, not their stated ability to be impartial. The text highlights that bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues being litigated, providing examples from cases involving murder and burglary.
DOJ-OGR-00005852.jpg
This legal document argues that the photo identification of a defendant by 'Minor Victim-4' was valid and not suggestive. It establishes that the victim had prior personal knowledge of the defendant from interactions between 2001 and 2004, and that the photo identification procedure was conducted cautiously. The document refutes the defense's claim that the defendant's photo was unduly suggestive because it looked like a 'mug shot' or was different from the others.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026596.jpg
This document is a page of footnotes (numbers 57-72) from a legal or tax analysis document produced for the House Oversight Committee. It cites various tax regulations (Reg 1.752, Reg 1.881), treatises on partnership taxation from 2009, and specific rulings regarding Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and Disregarded Entities (DREs). The content focuses on the technical tax treatment of pass-through entities across various US states.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity