Event Details
Date Unknown
Description
Deposition testimony given by the defendant under a protective order.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defendant (Maxwell) | person | 0 | View Entity |
| Martindell | person | 41 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) claims. The Government refutes the defendant's assertion that she was protected by a civil protective order when giving deposition testimony, citing case law (e.g., Andover Data Servs., Davis) to establish that such orders do not provide the same protections as the Fifth Amendment. The document also dismisses the defendant's claim that the Government's conduct violated her due process rights as "meritless."
Related Events
Events with shared participants
A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment charging the defendant with multiple counts, including conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors.
2020-06-29 • Southern District of New York
Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979)
1979-01-01 • 2d Cir.
A trial lasting thirteen days resulted in twelve jurors being persuaded of the Defendant's guilt.
Date unknown
Filing of MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six.
2021-02-04 • SDNY
Filing of MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six.
2021-02-04 • SDNY
The Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion regarding pre-indictment delay.
Date unknown
A trial occurred where testimony supplied legitimate explanations for the Government's delay in indicting the Defendant.
Date unknown
Jury selection process where Judge Nathan asked follow-up questions regarding jurors' personal experiences with sexual assault, abuse, or harassment.
Date unknown
The Defendant renewed her previous Rule 29 application for a judgment of acquittal.
Date unknown
A trial was held where a jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two.
Date unknown
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event