April 29, 2022
Filing of Document 657
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Court | organization | 2003 | View Entity |
| defendant | person | 747 | View Entity |
| the defendant | person | 996 | View Entity |
| court | location | 177 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00021021.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 29, 2022, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion regarding pre-indictment delay. The Court ruled that the Defendant failed to prove the Government intentionally delayed the indictment to gain a tactical advantage or that the delay caused actual prejudice to her defense. The text notes that trial testimony provided legitimate explanations for the timing of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg
This page contains a legal analysis from a court document (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the legal standards for 'variance' versus 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Banki, Rigas, Bastian, Salmonese, etc.) to establish that a defendant must prove substantial prejudice to reverse a conviction based on a variance claim. The text concludes by noting the Defendant is bringing a motion pursuant to Rule 33 to vacate judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 657 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) claim that delay in prosecution caused prejudice to her defense. The text argues the defendant failed to prove substantial prejudice but outlines her specific claims regarding lost evidence, including flight records, financial documents, phone records, and property records. It specifically names deceased witnesses the defense claims were unavailable: architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham.
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
This document is a page from a legal ruling (likely denying a new trial) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a jury note asking for clarification on 'Count Four' regarding whether aiding a victim's ('Jane') return flight constitutes guilt if the defendant did not aid the initial flight to New Mexico for sexual activity. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the jury instruction was unclear or that it constructively amended the indictment, noting that Jane testified about numerous flights on both Epstein's private plane and commercial airlines.
Events with shared participants
Real Estate Purchase under fake name
Date unknown • Unknown
The Court announced a 15-minute morning break for the jury.
2022-08-10
Carolyn engaged in sex acts with Epstein in exchange for money, arranged by the defendant.
Date unknown
The defendant conspired with Epstein to traffic Carolyn and other minors for sex.
Date unknown
The defendant personally recruited Virginia while she was a minor.
Date unknown • Virginia
A discussion took place regarding the order of witnesses for the day's trial proceedings.
2022-08-10 • courthouse
The defense at trial focused on the credibility of victims who testified against the defendant.
Date unknown
The jury convicted the defendant on five counts.
Date unknown
The jury selection process where Juror 50 gave answers that corroborated his hearing testimony.
Date unknown
The Government gave on-the-record assurances to the Court regarding investigative files.
2020-07-14
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event