This document is a transcript of a court conference held on July 31, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The proceedings focused on setting a schedule for discovery, motion practice (specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement), and a trial date. The government proposed a June 2020 trial, while the defense requested September 2020 due to the volume of discovery (over a million pages) and the complexity of the case; Judge Berman tentatively set the trial for June 8, 2020.
This document is an email chain from July 8, 2019, between the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Assistant United States Attorney's office and Pretrial Services regarding the processing of Jeffrey Epstein. The emails coordinate the transfer of information, including the sealed indictment (19 Cr. 490), Epstein's date of birth (1/20/53), and the Government's intent to seek detention. Notably, it references a search warrant executed 'this weekend' (prior to July 8) at Epstein's residence where 'images' were discovered.
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The discussion between the Court and prosecutor Ms. Moe concerns the details of the defendant's arrest, specifically confirming that the defendant ignored law enforcement commands to open the door and retreated to a separate room. The Court also notes an allegation that the defendant attempted to block location monitoring by wrapping a cell phone in foil.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. It features a dialogue between the Court and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the details of the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) arrest. The discussion focuses on the defendant's refusal to open the door for law enforcement and the specific allegation that she attempted to block location monitoring by wrapping a mobile phone in foil.
This legal document is a portion of a prosecution filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's wealth should not permit him to create a private, guard-monitored home confinement, citing legal precedent. It further argues the defendant poses an ongoing danger to the community, referencing a prior conviction for a sex crime with a minor and the discovery of a large collection of sexually suggestive photographs of underage females at his residence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity