Carmichael
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Kumho Tire Co.
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-01-01 | Legal decision | The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Carmichael, which held that plea agreements a... | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2000-01-01 | Court ruling | The 2d Circuit court ruled in U.S. v. Carmichael. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1999-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, which is cited for the scope of Rule 702. | N/A | View |
| 1999-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000635.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 3 of a 'Motion to Intervene' in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on August 27, 2019. The filer, identified as the Intervenor/Relator, outlines a timeline of legal actions against the USDOJ and Bill Barr, alleging a conspiracy, fraud, and the monopolization of the judiciary. The filer connects their case to the Jeffrey Epstein case, citing the concept of "prosecutorial discretion" and argues for their right to intervene based on legal precedent where a third party's constitutional rights are implicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
This legal document argues that the 'Annabi' court decision is an outlier and inconsistent with the Circuit's established law regarding the interpretation of plea agreements. The author contends that contrary to the District Court's opinion, the Circuit has been reluctant to rely on Annabi's reasoning, which construes ambiguities against the defendant, and has instead consistently held that such ambiguities should be resolved against the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00021841.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that plea agreements made by any U.S. Attorney are binding on the entire U.S. government across all federal districts. It cites several court cases establishing this principle and the related rule that any ambiguities in such agreements must be interpreted against the government. The document concludes by stating that a case named Annabi contradicts this established legal precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00008987.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 609) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing various precedents to establish that jurors retain privacy interests after a trial concludes and that jurors face criminal exposure for perjury on questionnaires. It also argues that third parties may intervene in criminal trials to protect their constitutional rights.
DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg
This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005790.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 7 of document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for admitting expert testimony under the 'Daubert' framework, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and numerous precedent cases. The text explains that a court must first assess an expert's qualifications and then determine if their testimony is both relevant and reliable, detailing several criteria for establishing reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00005633.jpg
This page from a legal filing discusses the standards for the admissibility of expert witness testimony. It cites several key legal precedents, including Daubert and Kumho Tire, to outline the court's responsibility to ensure an expert's opinion is reliable and based on sound methodology. The document also specifies that even if testimony meets these standards, it can be excluded under other rules, such as Rule 704, which prohibits experts in criminal cases from opining on a defendant's mental state.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity