Event Details
Date Unknown
Description
The case United States v. King, where the Second Circuit upheld sealing parts of the record based on jurors' privacy interests.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| King | person | 85 | View Entity |
| Second Circuit | organization | 869 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
This legal document argues in favor of allowing 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case to protect his privacy rights concerning a past sexual assault. It cites legal precedents, including the Supreme Court case *Press-Enter. Co.* and the Second Circuit case *United States v. King*, to establish that jurors have compelling privacy interests that justify sealing records on sensitive personal matters. The filing asserts that intervention will also allow Juror 50 to assert his fifth amendment rights before any inquiry is held.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
First publicly acknowledged placebo-controlled trial
1784-01-01 • France
Restructuring of the Saudi Cabinet and government bodies announced.
2016-01-01 • Saudi Arabia
Discussion and interpretation of the application of § 3283 statute of limitations, referencing Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents regarding war frauds and child sex abuse statutes.
Date unknown
The Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in 'In re U.S.', reversing a District Court's order that directed the Government to produce oral statements from defendants and coconspirators.
1987-01-01
The Second Circuit denied Maxwell’s petition for rehearing.
2024-11-25
In the Palmieri case, the Second Circuit reversed a district court's decision to grant the state Attorney General's motion to modify sealing orders.
Date unknown
The Second Circuit held in *Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.* that a new statute shortening the filing period for a civil claim applied retroactively.
Date unknown
The Second Circuit held in *In re Enterprise Mortgage Acceptance Co.* that applying an extended statute of limitations to revive previously time-barred claims had impermissible retroactive effects.
2004-01-01
In *Weingarten*, the Second Circuit considered, but did not ultimately reach, the issue of whether Section 3283 applies retroactively.
Date unknown
The Second Circuit rejected the defendant's reasoning in the Bahna case and upheld the conviction.
1995-01-01
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event