Jury
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Judicial instruction |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Unidentified Speaker (LCSCMAXT)
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Williams
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Authority instruction |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Williams
|
Administrative support |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge (implied)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Evaluation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge (unnamed)
|
Professional judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge (implied)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
U.S. MARSHAL
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lawyers
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Judicial authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Expert Witness
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
parties and the counsel
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding circumstantial evidence and inferences. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Election of Foreperson | jury room | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury deliberations during which a note was sent to the District Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening statement by Ms. Sternheim defending Ghislaine Maxwell | Open Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial sessions planned for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday before Christmas and New Year's. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury instruction on Count Four, requiring finding that Maxwell transported Jane for sexual activity. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution and conviction of Mike Tyson. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Instruction No. 9 given regarding the Indictment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge / Instructions phase of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Second Trial | Unknown (Court) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury sent a note asking if aiding in the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico constitut... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury sent a note regarding Count Four and transportation of Jane. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge / Instructions given by the Judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Minor Victim-3 expected to testify at trial. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge/Instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony presented regarding a witness's sexual abuse. | New Mexico (abuse location) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Recess | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury dismissal for holiday recess | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury convicted Defendant of Count Three and Count Four | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge regarding 'similar acts' evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments/Summation where Ms. Menninger allegedly argued Maxwell was a substitute for Eps... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conviction on Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acquittal by Jury on Count 2ss | SDNY | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury interruption of deliberations to seek explanation of the law (referenced in argument). | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018176.jpg
Page 75 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi. Attorney Ms. Comey requests a full Q&A be read for the record, but cross-examining attorney Mr. Pagliuca realizes he is on the wrong page and requests a break, which the Court grants.
DOJ-OGR-00018060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of witness Juan Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The Judge sustains a defense objection regarding a lack of foundation for Alessi's claim that an object was a 'later version of the book,' instructs the jury to disregard that statement, and allows the examination to proceed regarding a 'booklet.'
DOJ-OGR-00017929.jpg
This document is page 56 of a court transcript (Document 747) filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is providing expert testimony on the risk factors associated with child abuse, specifically citing parental conflict, financial difficulties, prior parental abuse, and family isolation. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00017929.
DOJ-OGR-00017827.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the Judge discuss sealing exhibits and the use of a pseudonym for the next witness, 'Matt,' to protect the identity of the prior witness ('Jane'). The jury enters, and 'Matt' is sworn in to testify for the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00017663.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008625.jpg
This document is a specific page (page 87 of 167) from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It serves as a Table of Contents for Jury Instructions, listing instructions 49 through 59, covering topics such as the defendant's right not to testify, evidence from searches, electronic communications, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008623.jpg
This document is page 2 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00008623) of a Table of Contents for Jury Instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines instructions for the jury regarding their role, the burden of proof, and specific charges including 'Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity' (Count Two) and 'Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity' (Count Four). The document details the structure of the legal charge, breaking down specific crimes into their constituent elements for jury consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00008599.jpg
This document is Jury Instruction No. 42, titled "Direct and Circumstantial Evidence," filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the two types of evidence, providing a hypothetical example to illustrate circumstantial evidence. The instruction emphasizes that both direct and circumstantial evidence hold equal value, and the jury must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00008549.jpg
This document is a legal instruction (Instruction No. 4) from a court case, filed on December 18, 2021. The judge directs the jury that they must decide the case based solely on their own recollection of the evidence, not on the arguments, objections, or statements made by the attorneys for the Government or the Defendant. The instruction explicitly states that statements from counsel and the court are not evidence and that the jury's memory of the facts is the ultimate authority.
DOJ-OGR-00008545.jpg
This document is page 7 of a 167-page legal filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It is a table of contents for a set of jury instructions, listing topics from Instruction No. 42 to No. 59, which cover evidence, witness credibility, defendant's rights, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008531.jpg
This document is page 75 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) dated December 17, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 56, which explains the definition of 'Redacted' items and instructs the jury to disregard reasons for redactions and focus only on admitted evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008466.jpg
This document is page 10 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The text contains standard jury instructions where the judge explains that the jury should not interpret any court actions as an opinion on witness credibility or evidence weight, affirming that decision-making is solely the jury's role.
DOJ-OGR-00008459.jpg
This document is the table of contents for jury instructions in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines the structure of the instructions, covering the roles of the court and jury, general legal principles like the presumption of innocence, and specific charges including conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00018748.jpg
This document is page 150 of 264 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page captures the very end of a session where the judge dismisses the jury for a one-hour lunch break. The header indicates the witness 'Carolyn' was under cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018540.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Maguire. Maguire describes the execution of a search warrant at a residence, detailing the 'knock and announce' procedure, the subsequent forced entry when no response was received, and the conducting of a 'protective sweep' to ensure officer safety. The witness also explains the process of photographing the scene and labeling rooms with alphabet letters to document where items were found.
DOJ-OGR-00018494.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (dated August 10, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named McHugh. The testimony details financial transactions from June 18, 2007, specifically an internal JP Morgan transfer of $7.4 million followed immediately by a wire transfer of $7,352,825 to Sikorsky Aircraft. The wire transfer references 'Air Ghislaine Inc.' and is described as the purchase of a green Sikorsky S76C helicopter.
DOJ-OGR-00018385.jpg
This document is a page from the direct examination of a witness named Kate in the trial against Ghislaine Maxwell. Kate testifies that Maxwell closed the door to a room where Kate then gave Epstein a massage that escalated into a sex act initiated by Epstein. Kate further testifies that immediately after the encounter, she went downstairs and Maxwell praised her, asking if she had fun and stating that Epstein liked her.
DOJ-OGR-00016897.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey informs the court that stipulations have been reached and the case is nearing conclusion, though one disputed issue remains. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins to address the court regarding this disputed fact.
DOJ-OGR-00016210.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the end of the day's proceedings where the judge dismisses witness Mr. Visoski for the evening while the jury is not present. The page contains significant whitespace as the testimony concluded early on the page.
DOJ-OGR-00016169.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of an opening statement delivered by Ms. Sternheim on August 10, 2022, in a case against Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Sternheim argues that the government is mischaracterizing lawful conduct as 'grooming' and highlights that witnesses testifying for the government have received substantial payments from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, suggesting a potential motive for their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016128.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. In it, the presiding judge instructs the jury on their fundamental duties, emphasizing that the judge decides the law while the jury are the 'triers of fact.' The judge defines what constitutes legal evidence—such as witness testimony and admitted documents—and begins to list items that must not be considered evidence, like lawyers' arguments, to ensure a fair verdict based only on the facts presented.
DOJ-OGR-00017206.jpg
This document is a transcript of a judge's charge to a jury, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury that they must follow the law as provided by the court, and that their exclusive role is to determine the facts by weighing evidence and witness credibility. The judge explicitly clarifies that statements made by lawyers during the trial are not to be considered evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017103.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Menninger argues that the prosecution is attempting to punish Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein's crimes because he is deceased. She highlights that the government seized nearly 38,000 photographs but only presented a small handful showing Maxwell and Epstein together, questioning what was in the remaining 37,960 photos.
DOJ-OGR-00016717.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Hyppolite. The testimony focuses on the procedural handling of student records within the Palm Beach County School District, detailing how records transfer from elementary to middle to high school and are eventually archived at the district level. The document is stamped with DOJ-OGR-00016717.
DOJ-OGR-00016618.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Loftus testifies about the fallibility of memory, specifically explaining 'rich false memories' and how scientific studies have successfully planted entire false events into people's minds, such as being attacked by an animal or nearly drowning.
Question about finding the defendant guilty based on sexu...
The jury posed a question during the trial, which is the subject of this legal analysis. The question asked if the defendant 'can' be found guilty based on sexual activity in New Mexico and used the word 'aided'.
No Subject
A note from the jury that Ms. Brune received and read, which made her 'very upset'.
Jury communication with the court
The judge instructs the jury that any communication with the court must be done in writing or by returning to the courtroom. The jury is explicitly forbidden from revealing its standing on the verdict until a unanimous decision is reached.
confusion
Communications from the jury indicating they were experiencing confusion.
No Subject
The document mentions the District Court's response to a jury note as a point of appeal, which was found not to have resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
response to jury note
Defendant failed to propose a legally accurate response to the jury's note.
Count Four
The jury sent a note asking only about Count Four, to which the defendant's proposed instruction was partly unresponsive.
Ambiguous note regarding Mann Act counts
An ambiguous note from the jury was sent to the Court. The Defendant argued it revealed an improper conviction, but the Court disagreed with this interpretation.
Proper basis to convict under Count Four of the Indictment
The jury inquired if the defendant could be found guilty under the second element of Count Four if they aided Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
Conditions for finding Maxwell guilty
The jury asked whether Maxwell 'can be found guilty' if a certain fact (sexual activity in New Mexico) is true, which the document argues is a sensible question about Maxwell's intent.
Instructions to the jury before a break
The speaker instructs the jury not to engage in any media or communications about the case, to keep an open mind, and to contact Ms. Williams with any issues (like COVID) that may arise before they resume deliberations on Monday.
The Jury Note
A jury note is listed under 'Background Facts' related to the argument that the court constructively amended the indictment.
Instructions to the jury before a break
The speaker instructs the jury not to engage in any media or communications about the case, to keep an open mind, and to contact Ms. Williams with any issues (like COVID) that may arise before they resume deliberations on Monday.
The Jury Note
A jury note is listed under 'Background Facts' related to the argument that the court constructively amended the indictment.
End of day deliberations
The jury sent a note to the court stating they were leaving at 5:30 and thanking the court.
Deliberation question regarding Count Four
Mr. Everdell discusses his interpretation of a note from the jury, believing it shows they are confused about instructions for Count Four and whether they can convict based solely on events in New Mexico.
Clarification on Indictment
An ambiguous jury note was analyzed to see if it implied a constructive amendment. The court found it clearly referred to the second element of Count Four of the Indictment.
Basis for conviction on Count Four
Mr. Everdell refers to a note from the jury which he believes indicates they are considering convicting Ms. Maxwell based solely on travel to and from New Mexico.
Clarification on arranging a return flight from New Mexico
The jury asked if finding that Ms. Maxwell helped arrange Jane's return flight from New Mexico (as opposed to the flight to New Mexico) would be sufficient to satisfy an element of the charge.
Inquiry about Count Four
The jury sent a note to the court asking a question specifically about Count Four of the charges.
Request for transcript
The jury sent a note to the court requesting the transcript of David Rodgers.
Ambiguous question regarding flights and sexual activity.
A note from the jury during trial that is described as 'entirely ambiguous'. The defendant argues it refers to a specific flight, but the document contends it is unclear which flight, where the sexual activity was to occur, or what question was being posed.
Aiding and abetting
A note from the jury is mentioned, which prompted the discussion. The note is believed to be about flights to and from New Mexico.
Ready to leave at 5:30
The judge acknowledges receiving a note from the jury stating they were ready to leave for the day at 5:30.
Jury's findings during deliberations
The Defendant contends that a jury note received during deliberations revealed that the jury convicted her on a crime different from the one charged, specifically regarding the location of the intended sexual activity.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity