Ianniello
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1989) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014869.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing, discusses the District Court's response to a jury note during deliberations in a case against Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, not the initial flight where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too complex, and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00000020.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the District Court's response to a specific note from the jury during deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent for sexual activity was present. The document states the court found the question too difficult to "parse factually and legally" and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions, an action which is being analyzed in this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00020955.jpg
This legal document excerpt discusses the standards for setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial, particularly focusing on juror nondisclosure during voir dire examination. It cites several Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases, establishing that such motions are disfavored and require a high burden of proof, specifically demonstrating a juror's dishonest answer to a material question that would have led to a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021866.jpg
This legal document details the District Court's handling of a jury note during the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in the victim Jane's return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too difficult to 'parse factually and legally,' and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions for that count.
DOJ-OGR-00021718.jpg
This document is page 58 (PDF page 71) of a legal filing from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal), dated June 29, 2023. The text outlines legal standards regarding post-verdict juror inquiries and Rule 33 motions, citing precedents that protect jurors from harassment and limit testimony regarding deliberations (Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)). It emphasizes that overturning a verdict based on juror non-disclosure during selection is rare.
DOJ-OGR-00021716.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the applicable law for granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a). It establishes the high burden of proof on the defendant and explains why post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct are strongly disfavored by the courts. The text cites several key legal precedents to support the argument that protecting the finality of jury verdicts and the integrity of deliberations is paramount.
DOJ-OGR-00021655.jpg
This document is page vii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal cases with the United States as the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation (including the court and year), and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.
DOJ-OGR-00021534.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to examine Juror 50 and other jurors. The defendant's motion was based on Juror 50's social media activity and post-trial statements, as well as a New York Times article alleging another juror had also been a victim of sexual abuse. The Court found the evidence insufficient, deemed the request a "fishing expedition," and took steps to protect juror privacy from media contact and legal inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello legal precedents is incorrect in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, the alleged misconduct by Juror No. 50 occurred outside the jury room, specifically through false answers during voir dire and subsequent self-publicity. The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that the juror's own actions in seeking the limelight are the reason the misconduct came to light.
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.
DOJ-OGR-00009152.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing by the U.S. Government, likely a motion or memorandum. It cites various legal precedents to establish the standards for conducting a post-verdict inquiry into potential juror misconduct. The Government argues that these standards have been met with respect to 'Juror 50' due to an inconsistency between his public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer on a juror questionnaire, and therefore consents to a hearing to determine if the juror lied.
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00009132.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 615) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text outlines legal standards for Rule 33 motions regarding alleged juror misconduct and misrepresentations during voir dire. It cites various precedents (Tanner, McDonough, Shaoul) to establish that courts disfavor post-verdict inquiries and require a strict two-part test to prove that a juror answered dishonestly and that a truthful answer would have resulted in a dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009882.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello precedents is misplaced in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, which dealt with conduct during deliberations, this case involves a juror (Juror No. 50) who gave false answers during voir dire—conduct outside the jury room—and therefore an evidentiary hearing is warranted. The document further notes that the juror has actively sought public attention, which is how his false answers became known.
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to compel the production of private communications from 'Juror 50', including emails and social media content from platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The author contends that the requests are an improper and invasive 'fishing expedition' that seeks inadmissible evidence, would harass the juror, and could inhibit future jury deliberations. The document urges the Court to reject all of the defendant's specific requests for information regarding the juror's communications, potential media payments, and social media activity.
DOJ-OGR-00009834.jpg
This legal document discusses a dispute over whether the Court should conduct a further inquiry into 'Juror 50'. The issue arises from a discrepancy between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his 'no' answer to a related question on the juror questionnaire. The defendant argues for an inquiry to determine potential bias, while the document presents a counterargument that such an inquiry is unnecessary based on the existing record and the juror's other responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009833.jpg
This legal document argues that a hearing to question Juror 50 should be strictly limited in scope and conducted by the Court itself. The author contends the inquiry should only focus on whether the juror intentionally lied in response to specific voir dire questions and was actually biased, citing legal precedent and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent improper questioning about jury deliberations. This approach is recommended to avoid harassment of the juror regarding sensitive topics like sexual abuse and to prevent the defendant from introducing inadmissible subjects.
DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing from March 11, 2022, outlines the legal standards and strong judicial disfavor for post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, it explains that such inquiries threaten the finality of verdicts and the integrity of the jury system. The document also details the strict, two-part test a defendant must satisfy to obtain a new trial based on a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire, requiring proof of both dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have warranted a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity