Dyer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Calderon
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case of Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) was decided. | 9th Cir. | View |
| 1998-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case cited: Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998). | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial due to false answers given by Juror No. 50 during jury selection. The central argument is that Maxwell does not need to prove the juror's falsehoods were deliberate, citing several legal precedents to support the claim that even honest mistakes can warrant a new trial to ensure the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The motion criticizes the government's position as a weak attempt to achieve "finality" at the expense of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing for the credibility of Juror 50 against a defendant's challenge. The filing contends that any inconsistencies in the juror's questionnaire answers should be assessed in a formal hearing, not based on public statements, and cites legal precedents suggesting jurors can make honest mistakes. It further argues that the juror's disclosure of having read about the defendant's connection to Epstein and the illogical nature of deliberately lying only to immediately risk exposure suggest the juror did not intentionally mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009005.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010362.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion regarding a defendant's motion to find a juror, Juror 50, biased. The defendant argued the juror's failure to disclose a personal history of sexual abuse during jury selection showed an inability to be impartial. The Court rejects this argument, finding that the juror's omission was due to inattention rather than a deliberate lie or perjury, and therefore denies the defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00010317.jpg
This legal document analyzes the conduct of Juror 50 during and after the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It highlights Juror 50's public revelation of his jury service on social media and his multiple false statements to the Court regarding his impartiality and willingness to follow instructions. The document argues that these actions demonstrate Juror 50's bias and inability to serve as an unbiased juror, providing grounds for a cause challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017072.jpg
This document is a page from the attendee list for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011. It lists high-profile individuals from global business, politics, and academia, including corporate CEOs (Google, Credit Suisse, Wal-Mart), government officials (Mayor of Mexico City, Russian Federation aides), and royalty. Notably, the list includes 'H.R.H. Duke of York' (Prince Andrew), a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein, listed in his capacity as UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017072.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity