8
Total Mentions
8
Documents
127
Connected Entities
Person referenced in documents
EFTA00040107
probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's antici
EFTA00088802
st this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed 13 EFTA00088815 testimony in this case is readily distinguishable from that in Raymond. There, the government gave notice o
EFTA00090721
(S.D.N.Y. 2020) 37 United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) 4 United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020 (D. Me. July 24, 2012)20 United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) 38 United States v. United States v. Un
EFTA00094653
probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's antici
EFTA00094642
probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's antici
EFTA01713166
ts irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants, granted a motion to quash with re
EFTA00178967_sub_001 - EFTA00178967_100
ts irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants, granted a motion to quash with re
EFTA01269867_sub_001 - EFTA01269867_100
ng Vas FUR Name Baba su)ndlo bine Rat Force Oleges shil de computed volt. Inc a rat hove vitae re Average Daly Eau,. to beenza of Be mood cool D. Me mate ad/privy that bt ealarved ty anti mereeny Dermot a zencurrevara: fbegirinitmizarny Chaves ter deny taw° 0 Bane Csa..)41; Eget( Linea Crud:

Jeffrey Epstein
PersonAmerican sex offender and financier (1953–2019)

United States
LocationCountry located primarily in North America

Ghislaine Maxwell
PersonBritish socialite and sex trafficker, daughter of Robert Maxwell, accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein

Russell Simmons
PersonAmerican entrepreneur and record executive

Raymond
PersonSurname reference in Epstein-related documents

Supreme Court
OrganizationHighest court of jurisdiction in the US
Daubert
PersonSurname reference in Epstein-related documents
Halamek
PersonSurname or name fragment in documents
Dupigny
PersonSurname reference in documents
Telles
PersonSurname or name fragment in documents
Federal Rule of Evidence 702
OrganizationOrganization referenced in documents
Engelmayer
PersonRefers to Paul Engelmayer, US District Judge SDNY, in Epstein-related legal proceedings
Rocchio
PersonSurname reference in Epstein-related documents

Torres
PersonAmbiguous surname - refers to multiple people in Epstein documents

Harvey Weinstein
PersonAmerican film producer and sex offender (born 1952)
Randall
PersonAmbiguous first name - refers to multiple people in Epstein documents

Scarlett Johansson
PersonAmerican actress (born 1984)
the Second Circuit's
OrganizationOrganization referenced in documents

Julie K. Brown
PersonAmerican journalist
Romero
PersonSurname reference in Epstein-related documents