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-00014656.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge is dismissing the jury for the day, instructing them to have no communication about the case with anyone and to resume deliberations at 9:00 a.m. the following morning. The judge also mentions a Ms. Williams will handle their lunch orders.
DOJ-OGR-00014640.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the admissibility and limited use of 'similar acts' evidence. The judge instructs the jury that such evidence cannot be used to prove bad character, but may be used to determine intent, lack of mistake, or the existence of a common scheme or plan.
DOJ-OGR-00014632.jpg
This document is page 232 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions (the Charge) regarding the definition and weight of circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence, and Instruction No. 43 regarding inferences. The judge explicitly instructs the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00014614.jpg
This document is page 214 of a court transcript (Document 767) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal definition of a 'conspiracy.' The text explains that a conspiracy consists of a mutual understanding, express or implied, to violate the law, and notes that direct evidence of an explicit agreement is not required, as circumstantial evidence and conduct can prove the existence of such an agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00005821.jpg
This is page 38 of a heavily redacted court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of certain exhibits as direct evidence of the defendant's intent, motive, and charged crimes, or alternatively under Rule 404(b)(2). Footnotes reference a Government letter from October 11, 2021, regarding the identification of parties in emails.
DOJ-OGR-00005520.jpg
This is page 65 of 69 from a court filing (Document 382) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the burden of proof lies solely with the government and criticizes the prosecution's concerns about jury confusion. Specifically, under Section XI, the defense asserts that Maxwell was the 'prevailing party' in a previous civil litigation based on the same facts, a point the government seemingly disputes.
DOJ-OGR-00008783.jpg
This document is page 77 of 83 from a court filing dated December 19, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines Jury Instruction No. 57, explaining 'Stipulations,' instructing the jury that they must accept agreed-upon facts as true and accept that stipulated witnesses would have given specific testimony, though the weight of that testimony remains for the jury to decide.
DOJ-OGR-00008770.jpg
This document is page 64 (internal page 63) of a court transcript filed on December 19, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text contains a specific instruction from the judge to the jury, admonishing them not to let significant media attention influence their evaluation of evidence or the credibility of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008711.jpg
This document is page 5 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 19, 2021. It serves as a Table of Contents listing Jury Instructions 49 through 59 and Concluding Remarks. Topics covered include the defendant's right not to testify, handling of witnesses, electronic communications, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008686.jpg
This document is Page 148 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 46, which guides the jury on how to evaluate testimony provided by law enforcement and government employees, specifically noting that their employment status does not automatically grant their testimony greater weight than that of ordinary witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00017554.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the direct examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. Jane testifies about sexual abuse she endured at ages 14, 15, and 16 in the massage room of a New York house (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein's), confirming that Maxwell was present during those years. The testimony includes a detailed description of the massage room, noting it was off the master bathroom, very dark with red lighting, and contained a giant black massage table.
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