Who is Dupigny in the Epstein files?

Dupigny is mentioned in several documents within the Epstein files as the defendant in the court case *United States v. Dupigny*. The mentions relate to legal discussions and rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence in that case. There's no indication of a direct connection to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell beyond the documents appearing in the same archive.

Why is Dupigny mentioned in these documents?

Dupigny's case, *United States v. Dupigny*, is cited as a legal precedent or example in documents related to other cases, including those involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The mentions concern specific rulings on evidentiary matters.

Was Dupigny involved in Epstein's activities?

Based on the available documents, there is no evidence to suggest that Dupigny was involved in any of Jeffrey Epstein's activities. The mentions are purely within the context of legal citations and case references.

Who is Dupigny in the Epstein files?

Dupigny is mentioned in several documents within the Epstein files as the defendant in the court case *United States v. Dupigny*. The mentions relate to legal discussions and rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence in that case. There's no indication of a direct connection to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell beyond the documents appearing in the same archive.

Why is Dupigny mentioned in these documents?

Dupigny's case, *United States v. Dupigny*, is cited as a legal precedent or example in documents related to other cases, including those involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The mentions concern specific rulings on evidentiary matters.

Was Dupigny involved in Epstein's activities?

Based on the available documents, there is no evidence to suggest that Dupigny was involved in any of Jeffrey Epstein's activities. The mentions are purely within the context of legal citations and case references.

Back to People & Entities

Dupigny

Person

Total Mentions

Documents

Connected Entities

The documents mention Dupigny in the context of court cases, specifically regarding evidentiary matters. Dupigny appears to be a defendant in a case, *United States v. Dupigny*, and the documents reference rulings and transcripts from that case concerning the admissibility of evidence.

Dupigny's name appears exclusively in legal documents as the defendant in *United States v. Dupigny*. These mentions relate to discussions of legal precedents, evidentiary rulings, and motions within the context of the case. There are no indications of involvement in the Epstein case beyond the shared legal context of the documents. Given the available information, the mentions appear to be incidental to the Epstein-related content of the documents.

Key Highlights

•Dupigny is the defendant in the case *United States v. Dupigny*.
•Mentions of Dupigny relate to legal arguments and rulings about evidence in their case.
•The connection to Epstein files is through shared legal documents, not direct association.

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein

Bradley J. Edwards

Victims' attorney's firsthand account

Document Mentions (5)

EFTA00011157 - EFTA00011160

1 mention

131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020) (Dkt. No. 384) (setting a Rule 412 deadline of October 15, 2020, for a November 9, 2020 trial); United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2019) (Dkt. No. 202) (requiring a "finalized proffer of evidence" the defense sought to admit under Rule 412 b

Page: EFTA00011158 →

EFTA00016471 - EFTA00016481

1 mention

ite common[ ]" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18- Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt.

Page: EFTA00016474 →

EFTA00023369 - EFTA00023377

1 mention

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 precluding the term "victim" is both unnecessary and impractical. United States v. Dupigny, 18 CR 528, transcript of October 17, 2019, Docket No. 198 at 50. It is appropriate for the government to use the terms as representative of its l

Page: EFTA00023369 →

Connected Entities(20 of 32)

Ghislaine Maxwell