E.D. Pa.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002367(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the court has the inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained through the government's misrepresentation. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that this power is not limited to misconduct within the immediate courtroom but can extend to related actions in other proceedings. The core argument is that the government's deception was essential to obtaining the factual basis for certain counts, and therefore, the resulting evidence should be suppressed.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002286.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'joinder' (combining) and 'severance' (separating) of criminal charges, citing various precedents to argue that offenses separated by time, location, or circumstance should not be tried together. It specifically addresses the standards for joining perjury or false statement counts with substantive crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, filed 07/27/2023) arguing legal precedents for 'third-party beneficiary' standing in non-prosecution and plea agreements. It cites multiple cases (*Stolt-Nielsen*, *Florida West Int'l Airways*, *El-Sadig*, *CFW Const. Co.*) to establish that individuals not explicitly named or communicated with can still be immune from prosecution if they are intended beneficiaries of an agreement between the government and another party. This legal argument is central to the defense's claims regarding the 2007 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, particularly in the context of criminal law. It references several court cases and legal principles, arguing that statutes of limitations should not be applied retroactively unless Congress clearly states otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00003106.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a defendant's motion. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's false statements, made in a civil deposition, were intended to obstruct a criminal investigation by the FBI and a grand jury, and are therefore connected to the substantive offenses. The argument cites several legal precedents to support the claim that the charges should not be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of expert opinions from a treatment provider named Rocchio. The filing contends that Rocchio's opinions on grooming are based solely on personal experience, lack a reliable methodology, and are not supported by scientific literature. It cites various legal precedents and an academic article to assert that her testimony fails to meet the standards for expert witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 362) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 20, 2021. The text argues for public access to the jury selection process (voir dire) and juror questionnaires, citing numerous legal precedents including United States v. Shkreli and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court. It asserts that First Amendment rights require these proceedings and documents to be presumptively open to the press and public.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity