Event Details
April 01, 2022
Description
Evidentiary Hearing
Participants (10)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MR. TEIN | person | 444 | View Entity |
| Mr. Shechtman | person | 126 | View Entity |
| MR. SKLARSKY | person | 13 | View Entity |
| MS. MCCARTHY | person | 25 | View Entity |
| Mr. Leopold | person | 126 | View Entity |
| Mr. Rotert | person | 22 | View Entity |
| MR. OKULA | person | 182 | View Entity |
| Juror 50 | person | 685 | View Entity |
| The Court | organization | 2003 | View Entity |
| Counsel | person | 172 | View Entity |
Source Documents (4)
DOJ-OGR-00009837.jpg
This document is page 39 of a government legal filing (Document 643) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to call all twelve jurors as witnesses to investigate potential non-disclosure of sexual abuse, labeling it a 'fishing expedition' damaging to the jury process. The text specifically addresses a New York Times article mentioning a second juror's abuse history and argues that questioning should be strictly limited to Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Daugerdas case, referenced in Epstein/Maxwell filings regarding juror misconduct precedents). The defense (Parse, Field) and the government rest their cases in an evidentiary hearing. The Judge requests post-hearing briefs specifically addressing whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard satisfied ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1'.
DOJ-OGR-00033049.jpg
A transcript page from a legal proceeding recording a heated exchange between attorneys Mr. Leopold and Mr. Tein. Leopold accuses Tein of repetitive questioning, while Tein asks Leopold to stop yelling. The argument escalates when Leopold mistakenly calls Tein 'Lewis,' leading to an insult from Leopold suggesting Tein made no impression during a previous three-day evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00010348.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's argument that 'Juror 50' was biased based on post-trial statements claiming the verdict was for the victims. The text discusses implied bias related to the juror's personal history of sexual abuse and references legal precedents regarding post-trial juror statements.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
A deposition where attorney Mr. Tein questions a witness about a MySpace message (Exhibit 31-001). A recess was taken during the proceedings.
Date unknown • Unspecified deposition location
A legal deposition is taking place where a witness is being questioned by Mr. Tein, with their attorney Mr. Leopold present.
Date unknown • Not specified
A discussion was held 'off the record' during the deposition.
Date unknown • Undetermined
A legal proceeding, likely a deposition, where a direct examination of a witness occurred. The filename '~0929104.TXT' suggests the date.
2004-09-29 • Likely Coconut Grove, FL
Direct examination of a witness by Mr. Tein, indexed to begin on page 4 of the full transcript.
Date unknown
The witness is questioned by Mr. Tein in a legal proceeding.
Date unknown • Not specified (likely a deposition room)
A legal deposition where an unidentified witness is questioned by attorney Mr. Tein.
2010-09-29 • Unknown
The deposition or testimony recorded in this transcript took place.
2010-09-29 • undetermined
A legal deposition where a witness is being questioned by Mr. Tein, with Mr. Leopold also present as an attorney.
2010-09-29 • Undisclosed deposition location
A heated argument occurs during a legal deposition among the attorneys present. The dispute centers on procedural conduct, interruptions, and the nature of objections, specifically attorney-client privilege.
Date unknown • Deposition Room (unspecified)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event