UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20-CR-330 (AJN) NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41
Persons Referenced (5)
“...Respectfully submitted, s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-I374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwe...”
Nicole Simmons“...Section 17 of the CM/ ECF Rules and served all parties of record by email. /s/ Nicole Simmons 3 EFTA00087359”
United States of AmericaUnited StatesGhislaine MaxwellTags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) x GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. EVID. 404(b) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE'S NOTICE REQUIREMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver CO 80203 Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, Phone: Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell EFTA00105954 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 I. 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) 1 II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case 2 ARGUMENT 4 I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the Government Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursuant to the Rule 4 II. Should the Government's Failure Be Excused, Ms.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GIIISLAINE MAXWE 'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON. M R AN & FOREMAN P.C. Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell EFTA00155901 Table of Contents Table of Contents ii Table of Authorities iv Introduction 1 Factual Background 2 I. Jury Selection. 2 A. The jury questionnaire. 2 B. Juror No. 50's questionnaire. 5 C. Juror No. 50's voir dire 6 D. The final composition of the jury. 9 II. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court 11 A. Juror No. 50's statements to the media. 12 1. The interview with the Independent. 12 2. The interview with the Daily Mail. 13 3. The interview with Reuters 14 4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL. Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A SEVERANCE OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00091875 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 OVERVIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS 2 A. Counts One through Four (the "Mann Act Counts") 2 B. Counts Five and Six (the "Perjury Counts") 2 APPLICABLE LAW 3 A. Joinder of Offenses 3 B. Sev
Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22
Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Denver Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP New York NY Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell EFTA00090721 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A. B. C. D. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO- CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT'S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER 1 The Court's Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense 1 The Court Has the Authority to Require Disclosure 2 There Should Be a Sanction 4 There are Substantial Issues with the Government's Anticipated Position 5 II. GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE BASIS OR REASONING TO ADMIT ANY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) x GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 52, AN UNAUTHENTICATED HEARSAY DOCUMENT FROM SUSPECT SOURCES Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell EFTA00074468 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. The Document Cannot be Authenticated 3 II. The Document is Not a Business Record 4 EFTA00074469 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES Cases v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 1 Missimer v. Tiger Machine Co., No. 04-3443, 2005 WL 3968133, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 28, 2005)
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.