DOJ-OGR-00020463.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 1-2, 07/08/2022, 3344417, Page77 of 91

Juror's Statements (Dkt. 568) (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/05/2022)

01/05/2022 | 571 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters. Dkt. Nos. 568, 569, 570. The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule for the Defense to move for a new trial in light of the issues raised in the parties' letters: Defense motion: January 19, 2022; Government response: February 2, 2022; Defense reply: February 9, 2022. The parties' briefing should address whether an inquiry of some kind is permitted and/or required, and, if so, the nature of such an inquiry. Although the Court reserves decision on whether an inquiry of any kind is warranted, the Court grants the Government's request, Dkt. No. 568, to offer court-appointed counsel to the juror in issue. Subject to the juror's right to decline court-appointed counsel, the Court will appoint the on-duty CJA counsel to represent the juror. If counsel for the juror wishes to be heard on the issue of the appropriateness of an inquiry, briefing by the juror's counsel may be filed by January 26, 2022. The Court will not adjourn post-trial briefing on other issues as requested by the Defense, Dkt. No. 569, but sets the following schedule for any other post-verdict motion by the Defense: Defense motion: February 4, 2022; Government opposition: February 18, 2022; Defense reply: March 4, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2022) (bw) (Entered: 01/05/2022)

01/05/2022 | 572 | NOTICE of Notice of Appearance for Jury Number 50 as to Ghislaine Maxwell (Spodek, Todd) (Entered: 01/05/2022)

01/05/2022 | 573 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. A notice of appearance has been filed by retained counsel on behalf of Juror Number 50. See Dkt. No. 572. Retained counsel has communicated to the Court that the juror does not wish to have counsel appointed. Accordingly, the Court will not appoint CJA counsel as indicated in its prior order. See Dkt. No. 571. Counsel for Juror Number 50 is directed to review Dkt. No. 571. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2022)(bw) (Entered: 01/06/2022)

01/10/2022 | 574 | JOINT LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated January 10, 2022 re: Scheduling Document filed by USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 01/10/2022)

01/12/2022 | 575 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The parties are ORDERED to submit via email any proposed redactions on or before January 13, 2022, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). If any redactions are proposed, the Court will determine whether any are appropriate and then docket the motion. The parties shall respond to Juror 50s motion on or before January 20, 2022. Upon further reflection, unless and until Juror No. 50 is permitted to intervene, he may have no standing to be heard on the question of whether an inquiry should be conducted. Accordingly, the Court withdraws the aspect of its prior order setting January 26, 2022, as the date by which counsel for Juror 50 should file a submission on the issue of the appropriateness of an inquiry. Dkt. No. 571. The Court will hear from the parties first regarding Juror 50's pending motion. Depending on the resolution of that motion, the Court will provide further guidance to counsel for Juror 50 regarding any permitted submission. If a further submission is permitted, the Court will provide ECF docketing access to counsel for Juror 50 at that time (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/12/22)(jw) (Entered: 01/12/2022)

01/14/2022 | 576 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court required the parties to indicate whether Juror 50's motion to intervene and to be provided a copy of the jurors completed questionnaire and voir dire should be redacted. Dkt. No. 575. In response, the parties have submitted letters to the Court indicating their differing views on whether Juror 50s motion should be docketed at all. Upon further reflection, the Courtconcludes that it must first address the threshold question of whether an inquiry is permittedand/or required before considering Juror 50s requests. Accordingly, the Court will not consider or act on Juror 50's request to intervene and to be provided a copy of the jurors completed questionnaire and voir dire until the Court receives the parties briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry and the nature of any such inquiry. The Court will maintain Juror 50's motion temporarily under seal until the Court considers the parties arguments and determines the appropriate next steps. Consistent with this and to (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/14/22)(jw) (Entered: 01/14/2022)

DOJ-OGR-00020463