Event Details

This document is Page 71 of 80 from a filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The content is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion overturning Bill Cosby's conviction ([J-100-2020]), discussing the legal principle of 'reasonable reliance' on a prosecutor's public promise not to prosecute. This precedent was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue for the validity of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).

This document is page 106 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text details the Government's argument that it did not circumvent the 'Martindell' legal standard when seeking evidence previously under protective orders, specifically referring to a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. It notes that Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled that the Government had demonstrated 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the release of testimony to the grand jury despite previous protective orders.

A Certificate of Good Standing from the District of Columbia Bar certifying that attorney Sigrid S. McCawley has been a member since June 2, 2000, and remains active as of March 24, 2021. The document was filed on March 26, 2021, as part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), likely to support McCawley's legal standing in the proceedings.

This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling overturning Bill Cosby's conviction), which is being cited as a precedent. It discusses the principles of 'fundamental fairness' and 'detrimental reliance' regarding non-prosecution agreements/decisions by District Attorneys, arguing that the Montgomery County DA must abide by the former DA's promise not to prosecute Cosby. This was likely submitted by Maxwell's defense to argue that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement should similarly protect her.