DOJ-OGR-00021651.jpg
363 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
363 KB
Summary
This document is page iii of a table of contents from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines legal arguments concerning specific criminal counts involving sexual abuse of a child, a challenge to a legal approach by someone named Maxwell, and an appeal regarding the District Court's decision to not disqualify Juror 50 despite mistakes on a questionnaire.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Landgraf |
Mentioned in the heading 'ii. Landgraf Step Two', likely referring to a legal precedent or test.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned in the heading 'b. Maxwell’s Argument for Use of a Categorical Approach Lacks Merit', suggesting this perso...
|
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Mentioned in the heading for POINT III, regarding the District Court's conclusion that he could be fair and impartial...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The District Court | Government agency |
Mentioned as the judicial body that made a decision regarding Juror 50's impartiality.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Jury Selection Process
The Hearing
The District Court’s Decision
Relationships (2)
The document outlines 'Maxwell's Argument' in opposition to a legal approach, within a case being handled by the court system which includes 'The District Court'.
The document discusses the District Court's decision regarding the fairness and impartiality of Juror 50.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,262 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page4 of 93
iii
PAGE
ii. Landgraf Step Two . . . . . . . . . 37
2. Section 3283 Reaches Counts Three
and Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
and Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
a. Counts Three and Four Are
Offenses Involving the Sexual
Abuse of a Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Offenses Involving the Sexual
Abuse of a Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
b. Maxwell’s Argument for Use of
a Categorical Approach Lacks
Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
a Categorical Approach Lacks
Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
POINT III—The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Concluding that Juror 50 Could
Be Fair and Impartial Notwithstanding His
Inadvertent Mistakes on His Juror
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Discretion in Concluding that Juror 50 Could
Be Fair and Impartial Notwithstanding His
Inadvertent Mistakes on His Juror
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A. Relevant Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. The Jury Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2. Juror 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. The Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4. The District Court’s Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
B. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
C. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
DOJ-OGR-00021651
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document