Relationship Details

This legal document argues that the court should deny the defendant's request for a post-verdict hearing and 'pre-hearing discovery' concerning juror conduct. The argument is based on legal precedent, stating that the defendant's evidence—a single anonymous sentence from a newspaper article—is inadmissible hearsay and does not meet the required standard of 'concrete allegations.' The document cites several cases to support the position that courts routinely deny such inquiries to protect the finality of verdicts and avoid the dangers of post-verdict juror scrutiny.

This legal document is page 3 of a court filing from October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the court's reasoning for denying a defendant's request for attorney-conducted voir dire. The defendant argued for it based on significant pretrial publicity and the case's sensitive nature, but the court concluded that court-conducted voir dire is sufficient to ensure fairness and prevent potential prejudice, citing legal precedents.

This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.

This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.

This legal document discusses the defendant's financial status and its implications for her bail conditions. It highlights that the defendant possesses significantly more assets ($22 million, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds) than initially reported, making her a substantial flight risk. The document also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed bail bond, noting that some co-signers are UK residents who haven't offered cash or property, and the defendant's $7 million attorney retainer is presumed unspent.

This legal document details a dispute between the Defendant and the Court regarding how to respond to a deliberating jury's note. The Defendant's initial proposed responses were deemed erroneous, and she later conceded a point about a return flight's potential connection to illegal sexual activity. The document outlines the Defendant's attempts to influence the jury's understanding through specific instructions and supplemental proposals.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2004 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual should be applied to the defendant's case. It refutes the defendant's objections, which are based on the Ex Post Facto Clause, by establishing that the criminal conduct continued until December 31, 2004, after the 2004 Manual became effective. The argument is supported by citations to the Guidelines and Second Circuit case law.

This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 621) dated February 25, 2022. The author argues against a defendant's claim of multiplicity, urging the Court to apply the 'Korfant factors' for analyzing counts within the same indictment. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's claim should be rejected because the counts are legally distinct.

This legal document, dated February 11, 2022, is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court denies Juror 50's motion to intervene and also denies the Defendant's request to seal that motion, citing the public's right to access judicial documents. The document then details the Court's analysis of a separate request from the Defendant to temporarily seal documents related to a motion for a new trial, outlining the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit used to evaluate such requests.

This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues that the defense in a federal criminal case is improperly relying on civil case law regarding pseudonyms for plaintiffs. It asserts that the current case involves crime victims, who are entitled to statutory protections under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, unlike civil plaintiffs who are generally required to identify themselves. The document criticizes the defense for ignoring relevant precedent from high-profile sex abuse trials and for citing irrelevant civil cases.

This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a response from the prosecution, arguing that the court's jury instructions were proper. It states the court correctly instructed the jury to consider only New York law as the predicate offense for the Mann Act counts and was right to reject the defendant's requests for additional limiting instructions regarding testimony about events in New Mexico and varying ages of consent. The filing asserts that the defendant's claim of potential jury confusion is speculative and implausible.

This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's flight risk. The court concludes that despite the defendant's arguments, factors such as their French citizenship, extraordinary financial resources, international ties, and the difficulty of extradition weigh strongly in favor of continued detention. The court dismisses the defendant's argument about waiving extradition rights as potentially strategic and unpersuasive.

This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion or a party's brief, dated February 25, 2022. The text analyzes Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations to challenge a verdict. The document discusses the rule's specific exceptions, such as external influence or racial bias, in the context of the Defendant's attempt to use statements from 'Juror 50' about what another juror said. The central issue is whether these statements are barred by Rule 606 or fall under one of its exceptions.

This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.

This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 30, 2020, outlines the legal standard for pretrial detention. It discusses a defendant's right to bail under the Eighth Amendment and the Bail Reform Act, detailing the conditions under which a court can deny bail. The text explains the rebuttable presumption against release for certain offenses and clarifies the respective burdens of proof for the defendant and the government in such hearings, citing several precedent cases.

This legal document is a court opinion or order analyzing a defendant's flight risk. The Court is not persuaded by the Defendant's proposals to renounce her UK citizenship or to have a retired federal judge oversee her finances, concluding that she would still be able to delay or resist extradition. The Court maintains that the Defendant remains a flight risk due to her substantial international ties and the incentive to flee.