You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.

DOJ-OGR-00020435.jpg

1.46 MB

Extraction Summary

15
People
10
Organizations
2
Locations
10
Events
7
Relationships
0
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 1.46 MB
Summary

This document is a court docket from the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from October 20-22, 2021. It records efforts by media organizations, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to oppose the sealing of jury selection materials, ensuring public access. The central entry is a detailed order by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying the request to seal the materials and outlining the specific procedures and a comprehensive schedule for the upcoming jury selection process, including questionnaires, voir dire, and deadlines for counsel.

People (15)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Mentioned as the defendant in multiple court filings and orders (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Alison J. Nathan Judge
Presiding judge in the case, addressed in letters and author of court orders.
Alison Moe AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney)
Recipient of a letter motion and participant in a pretrial conference for the government.
Lara Pomerantz AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney)
Recipient of a letter motion and participant in a pretrial conference for the government.
Andrew Rohrbach AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney)
Recipient of a letter motion and participant in a pretrial conference for the government.
Townsend
Mentioned in parentheses at the end of docket entry 362, likely a court clerk or attorney initial.
Katielynn
Mentioned in parentheses at the end of docket entry 362, likely a court clerk or attorney initial.
Pete Brush Reporter
Author of a letter to Judge Nathan regarding opposition to secret jury selection.
Bobbi Sternheim Attorney
Represented defendant Ghislaine Maxwell during a pretrial conference.
Jeff Pagliuca Attorney
Represented defendant Ghislaine Maxwell during a pretrial conference.
Christian Everdell Attorney
Represented defendant Ghislaine Maxwell during a pretrial conference.
Laura Menninger Attorney
Represented defendant Ghislaine Maxwell during a pretrial conference.
Maurene Comey AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney)
Represented the government in a pretrial conference.
Carol Ganley Court Reporter
Present via telephone for the pretrial conference.
Lugosch
Mentioned in a case citation (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga).

Organizations (10)

Name Type Context
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Non-profit organization
Filed a LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition regarding the sealing of a juror questionnaire.
17 News Media Organizations Media
Joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in filing a LETTER RESPONSE.
USA Government
The prosecuting party in the case 'USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell'.
New York federal courts Government agency
The court system where the case is being heard, mentioned in Pete Brush's letter.
SDNY press corps Association
Members joined the RCFP in opposition to secret jury selection.
RCFP Non-profit organization
Abbreviation for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Clerk's Office Government agency
Tasked with creating a list of names and randomly assigned juror numbers for jury selection.
U.S. Attorney's Office Government agency
Tasked with distributing completed juror questionnaires to defense counsel.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga Company
A party in a cited legal case (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga).
2d Cir. Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, mentioned in a case citation.

Timeline (10 events)

2021-10-20
A LETTER RESPONSE was filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in opposition to a motion to seal the juror questionnaire.
2021-10-21
A letter was filed by reporter Pete Brush on behalf of the SDNY press corps, joining the opposition to secret jury selection.
Pete Brush SDNY press corps RCFP Judge Alison J. Nathan
2021-10-21
A Pretrial Conference was held via telephone regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell.
Telephone
2021-10-22
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order detailing the procedures and schedule for jury selection, including questionnaires and voir dire. The order denied the request to seal the questionnaires.
Judge Alison J. Nathan
2021-10-22
An order was issued attaching the Court's draft jury questionnaire.
Judge Alison J. Nathan
2021-11-04
Scheduled date for administration of a screening questionnaire for jury selection.
Prospective Jurors Court Staff
2021-11-05
Scheduled date for administration of a screening questionnaire for jury selection.
Prospective Jurors Court Staff
2021-11-12
Scheduled date for administration of a screening questionnaire for jury selection.
Prospective Jurors Court Staff
2021-11-15
Scheduled in-person conference to resolve disputes regarding jury selection.
Counsel for Defense Counsel for Government The Court
2021-11-16
Scheduled start of voir dire proceedings.
Prospective Jurors Counsel for Defense Counsel for Government The Court

Locations (2)

Location Context
Mentioned in the context of the 'SDNY press corps'.
Mentioned in a case citation (Pyramid Co. of Onondaga).

Relationships (7)

Ghislaine Maxwell Professional Bobbi Sternheim
Bobbi Sternheim is listed as an attorney for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, during a pretrial conference.
Ghislaine Maxwell Professional Jeff Pagliuca
Jeff Pagliuca is listed as an attorney for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, during a pretrial conference.
Ghislaine Maxwell Professional Christian Everdell
Christian Everdell is listed as an attorney for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, during a pretrial conference.
Ghislaine Maxwell Professional Laura Menninger
Laura Menninger is listed as an attorney for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, during a pretrial conference.
USA Adversarial (Legal) Ghislaine Maxwell
The document details proceedings in the court case 'USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell'.
Judge Alison J. Nathan Judicial All parties
Judge Nathan is presiding over the case, receiving letters from parties, and issuing orders that direct the actions of the prosecution and defense.
The SDNY press corps is noted as joining the RCFP in its opposition to secret jury selection.

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (5,163 characters)

Case 22-1426, Document 1-2, 07/08/2022, 3344417, Page49 of 91
10/20/2021 | 362 | LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 17 News Media Organizations dated October 20, 2021 re: 339 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated October 11, 2021 re: Sealing of Joint Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Voir Dire .. (Townsend, Katielynn) (Entered: 10/20/2021)
10/21/2021 | 363 | LETTER as to USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Pete Brush, reporter, New York federal courts, dated Thu 10/21/2021 11:28 AM re: members of SDNY press corps join RCFP in opposition to secret jury selection in USA v. Maxwell. (bw) (Entered: 10/21/2021)
10/21/2021 | | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Pretrial Conference as to Ghislaine Maxwell held on 10/21/2021. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present via telephone with attorney Bobbi Sternheim, Jeff Pagliuca, Christian Everdell and Laura Menninger via telephone. AUSA Lara Pomerantz, Maurene Comey, Alison Moe and Andrew Rohrbach for the government via telephone. Court Reporter Carol Ganley via telephone. Pretrial Conference held via telephone. Defendant remains remanded. See Transcript. (jbo) (Entered: 10/25/2021)
10/22/2021 | 364 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: For the reasons stated on the record at yesterday's conference, the Court will implement the following procedures for jury selection: A screening questionnaire will be administered on November 4, 5, and 12. The Clerk's Office will create a corresponding list of names and randomly assigned juror numbers. The list will be provided to counsel and the Court for use throughout jury selection. Jurors will be identified on the questionnaire and in court throughout the process by their assigned number only. Completed questionnaires will be copied and distributed to defense counsel by the U.S. Attorney's Office. After reviewing the completed questionnaires, counsel must confer in good faith and jointly submit four lists: (1) prospective jurors that both sides agree should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that both sides agree should be excused; (3) prospective jurors that the defense, but not the Government believes should be excused; and (4) prospective jurors that the Government, but not the defense believes should be excused. Lists for questionnaires completed on November 4 and 5 will be due to the Court via email by November 7. Lists for questionnaires completed on November 12 will be due to the Court via email by November 13. If necessary, there will be an in-person conference on November 15 at 9:30 a.m. to resolve any disputes. Voir dire will proceed on November 16-19. The Court will conduct one-on-one voir dire with each prospective juror in the presence of the parties and with public access to the proceeding. At the conference, both sides indicated the potential need for additional procedures during voir dire under certain circumstances. See Transcript at 1011. As the Court indicated, it will consider proposed narrowly tailored measures that may be necessary during voir dire on a case-by-case basis. See id. at 12. The Court will decide in due course whether the exercise of peremptory strikes will proceed on November 19 or November 29. The Court implements these procedures taking into account the significant publicity this case has garnered, the nature of the charges, and the District's COVID-19 protocols. These procedures are carefully balanced and tailored to ensure the safety of the parties and prospective jurors in light of the continuing pandemic; to ensure juror candor, impartiality, and privacy; and to ensure the First Amendment right to public access of criminal proceedings. Also for the reasons stated on the record at yesterday's conference, the request to seal the parties' proposed questionnaire and voir dire and the Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire until after jury selection is completed is denied. Although the Court has and will continue to implement tailored measures to ensure a fair trial despite significant media interest, see Dkt. Nos. 28, 81, 95, 99, 101, 232, 241, 284, 301, 315, the defense did not justify sealing the entirety of the proposed and draft questionnaires and voir dire. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court's planned individual voir dire process is designed to carefully probe the prior exposure to and the potential influence of any pre-trial media. As noted at the conference, the parties may continue to propose for the Court's consideration, any appropriate and tailored procedures in light of the specific factors related to this case and upcoming trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/22/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 10/22/2021)
10/22/2021 | 365 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Attached are the Court's draft jury questionnairewith changes adopted at yesterday's proceeding in redlineand draft voir
DOJ-OGR-00020435

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document