Relationship Details

This legal document is a filing, likely by the government, arguing that the district court should deny the defendant's 'Third Bail Motion'. The primary argument is that the court lacks jurisdiction because the defendant has a simultaneous bail appeal pending in the Second Circuit. A secondary argument is that even if jurisdiction existed, the motion should be denied because the court has already twice found the defendant to be a flight risk.

This legal document is a court filing from June 30, 2020, which denies a defendant's motion for bail. The court explains that a legal presumption in favor of detention applies, particularly because the defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim, which suffices to establish probable cause. The document clarifies that the defendant bears a limited burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption.

This legal document argues against a defendant's request to seal a motion for a new trial, which was based on a juror's alleged failure to properly answer a questionnaire. The author asserts the public's common law right of access to judicial documents, citing legal precedents like 'Amodeo' and 'Lugosch' to argue that the defendant has not met the high standard for secrecy. The document suggests that limited redactions, rather than a complete seal, would be a more appropriate course of action.

This document is a page from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for bail, explaining that under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), a presumption in favor of detention applies because the Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim. The document cites case law (Contreras and Jessup) to affirm that an indictment establishes probable cause and places a limited burden on the Defendant to produce evidence to counter the presumption of detention.

This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 28, 2020, denying a defendant's application for release. The Court reaffirms its initial decision, concluding the defendant is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance at future proceedings, thus warranting continued pre-trial detention. The order also instructs the parties to submit a joint letter regarding potential redactions by December 30, 2020.

This legal document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, addressing a motion from the Defendant regarding potential juror misconduct. The Court orders a limited evidentiary hearing to question Juror 50 under oath about statements made to the media after the trial, which cast doubt on the truthfulness of their answers on the jury selection questionnaire. The Court denies the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and discovery, finding the standard is only met concerning Juror 50's questionnaire responses and not their social media use or the conduct of other jurors.

This document is page 26 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding 'Applicable Law' specifically concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause and the concept of 'multiplicity' in criminal charges. It cites various precedents to argue that charges covering different schemes under different statutes are not identical and that the Court should reject the defendant's motion.

This document is page 7 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's decision to deny the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, citing the Bail Reform Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The ruling establishes a presumption in favor of detention because the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and notes that the Grand Jury indictment provides sufficient probable cause for this presumption.