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-00016593.jpg
This document is page 110 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus, who is explaining the scientific peer-review process and confirming their experience serving on editorial boards for psychology journals. The document includes standard court headers, line numbers, and a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00016590.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus, who is discussing their professional credentials. Loftus notes their CV is 47 pages long and highlights their election to the National Academy of Sciences in 2004 as a significant honor.
DOJ-OGR-00016586.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016480.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. A government prosecutor addresses the Court regarding the potential calling of a rebuttal expert and the logistics of closing arguments, specifically how to present sealed exhibits to the jury without making them public. The speaker emphasizes coordination with the defense to ensure the process runs smoothly.
DOJ-OGR-00013095.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It records the end of the recross-examination of a witness named Mr. Flatley by attorney Ms. Pomerantz regarding technical details of how email clients populate messages when connected to the internet. Following the questioning, the Court excuses Mr. Flatley and dismisses the jury for a 15-minute break.
DOJ-OGR-00017349.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a brief exchange between the Judge ('The Court'), Ms. Moe (Prosecution), and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirming there are no further matters to discuss while the jury is not present. The proceedings are adjourned until December 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00017333.jpg
This document is the final page (29 of 29) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the end of the court session where the jury is dismissed, and attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters. The court adjourns until December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00017321.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding a note sent by the jury during deliberations. The debate centers on whether the jury is asking about the general legal concept of 'aiding and abetting' or specifically about Ms. Maxwell's role in arranging flights to and from New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00017317.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, dated August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a discussion between MR. EVERDELL and MS. MOE, addressing 'Your Honor,' regarding a defendant's alleged role in transporting 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. The central issue is whether these flights were intended for illegal sexual activity and if the defendant's actions constitute aiding and abetting, with the jury currently deliberating on these points for a potential conviction on Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00017295.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which a judge gives instructions to the jury. The judge addresses the jury's schedule, the procedure for beginning deliberations, a potential deliberation date of December 23rd, and reminds them of the courthouse mask policy and the strict rule against discussing the case outside of formal deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00017277.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the end of a trial day during the jury deliberation phase, where the judge acknowledges a note from the jury to leave at 5:30 PM and provides strict instructions not to discuss the case or consume outside information. The judge instructs the jury to resume deliberations the following morning at 9:00 AM once all 12 jurors are present.
DOJ-OGR-00017257.jpg
This document is page 236 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains jury instructions regarding the evaluation of witness credibility, specifically focusing on how the jury should weigh the testimony of a witness who is a convicted felon. The text instructs jurors to use their common sense and everyday experience to determine if the witness is truthful despite their criminal record.
DOJ-OGR-00017256.jpg
This document is page 235 of 257 from a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains jury instructions ('Charge') regarding the evaluation of witness credibility. It specifically instructs the jury on how to handle witnesses who may have lied under oath, provided contradictory testimony, or who have a personal interest in the outcome of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013988.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 Loftus. The testimony focuses on the suggestiveness of psychotherapy, the potential for creating false memories regarding childhood trauma, and the psychological concept of 'labeling' in relation to memory distortion.
DOJ-OGR-00013969.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), who is explaining the scientific peer review process and her experience serving on editorial boards for psychology journals. The document appears to be part of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial records.
DOJ-OGR-00013966.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus). The witness discusses her professional accolades, noting that her CV is 47 pages single-spaced. She highlights her election to the United States National Academy of Sciences in approximately 2004 as her most prestigious award.
DOJ-OGR-00013964.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who testifies about her educational background at UCLA and Stanford, establishing her credentials in mathematics and psychology. The questioning focuses on the definition and contents of her Curriculum Vitae (CV) to lay the foundation for further expert testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013962.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of Elizabeth Loftus's direct examination. Ms. Loftus, identified as a professor and scientist, is called as a witness by the Defendant. The excerpt includes procedural discussions between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and THE COURT regarding the handling of an exhibit and the commencement of the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013890.jpg
This document is a single page (page 31 of 246) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between the Marshal, Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and the Judge regarding the readiness for a female individual waiting outside and an order to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013587.jpg
A court transcript page filed on August 10, 2022, documenting a procedural pause in a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request a private discussion in the robing room with the defense's consent, leading the judge to excuse the jury. The transcript notes that the subsequent pages (2020-2024) regarding this discussion are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00013305.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It begins with a brief legal discussion regarding business records and the case 'Matter of Ollag Construction Equipment.' Following the entry of the jury, the Government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) calls witness Janine Gill Velez for direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00010368.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's motions for acquittal (Rule 29) and to vacate convictions based on constructive amendment or prosecutorial delay (Rule 33), citing sufficient evidence and lack of prejudice. However, the Court rules in favor of the Defendant regarding 'multiplicitous' counts, concluding that Counts One, Three, and Five charge the same offense regarding a decade-long unlawful agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00003090.jpg
This document is page 156 of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues that a jury should decide if the defendant lied, rejecting the defendant's claims that her answers were truthful. It introduces 'Count Six,' which charges the defendant with perjury related to a 'second deposition' that occurred in July 2016, though the specific transcripts of that deposition are redacted on this page.
DOJ-OGR-00014737.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule over the New Year holidays (Jan 1 and 2). The Judge insists on a strict schedule to minimize the risk of trial delays caused by potential COVID-19 quarantine requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00014672.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding how to answer a jury question concerning conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. The defense argues for repeating limiting instructions to prevent broad application of testimony, while the Court argues a simple 'yes' is the substantive answer and the limiting instruction is nonresponsive.
Question regarding Count Four (4) of the Indictment
Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?
Unknown question regarding instructions
Jury sent a note; Judge is responding by referring them to instruction number 21.
Response to Note
So I received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the instruction.
Clarification on charges
Indicated confusion regarding Count Four and jurisdiction.
Legal question regarding conviction grounds
A note from the jury that the attorneys are finding confusing and hypothetical.
Closing Arguments
Attorneys asking jury to infer facts based on reason and experience.
Unknown
Described as a 'single ambiguous jury note'.
Unknown inquiry
Jury note sent to the court.
Clarification on conviction basis
Implied note asking if they can convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico.
Clarification on Count Four
Ambiguous note referring to the second element of Count Four of the Indictment.
Sexual Abuse
Described incidents of sexual abuse in Epstein's residence in Palm Beach involved no interstate travel.
Question on Count Four
Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?
Unknown
Jury note referenced in appeal point (4) regarding constructive amendment or prejudicial variance.
Clarification on Count Four
Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty if they aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico.
Jury Instructions
Instruction to avoid media, not communicate about the case, and contact Ms. Williams for issues.
Jury Instructions
Instructions regarding Mann Act, Counts Two and Four, and New York Penal Law Section 130.55
Unknown legal query
Referenced in appeal point (4) regarding the court's response resulting in a constructive amendment.
Isolation from parents
Jane told the court that her mother was never invited when she spent time with Maxwell and Epstein.
Clarification during deliberations
Revealed potential confusion regarding the location of the crime (New Mexico vs New York).
Request for supplies and clarification
Requesting supplies, Matt's transcript, and asking a question regarding the definition of 'enticement'.
Response to Note
Providing supplies, Matt's transcript, and referring the jury to specific page/line numbers (21 and 33) regarding the definition of enticement.
Exhibit 52 / Names in books
Argument that names in books linked to people discussed by Jane regarding sexualized massages.
Count 4 / NY Penal Law
Evidence of jury's misunderstanding regarding sexual activity in New Mexico violating NY law.
Conviction basis for Count Four
Indicated jurors were considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four based solely on Jane's testimony about New Mexico.
Floor plans
Testified about floor plans and reconstruction.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity