Judge
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jury
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Judicial instruction |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Authority instruction |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Judicial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Investigator
|
Professional investigator judge |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jurors
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Counsel (Teams)
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jurors
|
Authority instruction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prospective jurors
|
Judicial authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JUROR
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Secretary of State
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Secretary of State
|
Procedural |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. SCHECTMAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Murder case against former interior minister Habib el-Adly. | Egypt | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dolich Wuss is 'over in court'. Message to 'Haa' to 'report this to judge'. The 'RUSH' and 'PLEAS... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | In camera conference | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's sentencing where Lanna Belohlavek was questioned by the judge. | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection / Trial | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing of the defendant to 2-6 years in prison. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims' lawsuit against the government | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge restarted jury deliberations due to juror illness | 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 | Sentencing hearing ruling where judge overrules objection regarding 'continuing danger to the pub... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judicial ruling on sentencing enhancement objection. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Side bar conferences | 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 | Jury Charge/Instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing Calculation | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury dismissal for holiday recess | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge regarding 'similar acts' evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding scope of witness testimony | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Delivery of Instruction No. 39: Conscious Avoidance. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Charge (The moment the judge read these instructions to the jury). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge reading Charge to the Jury regarding Count Two (Enticement to engage in illegal sexual acti... | Courtroom | View |
EFTA00036293.pdf
This document is an email chain from June to August 2019 involving a Forensic Psychologist at the MCC New York (Federal Bureau of Prisons). The psychologist details severe understaffing in the department and a personal medical procedure as reasons for requesting a 15-day extension to complete a forensic evaluation (likely for Jeffrey Epstein, given the attachment filename '70497-050_ORD.pdf', which matches his inmate number). The correspondence includes references to a letter sent to a Judge signed by the Warden.
EFTA00014153.pdf
This document is an email chain between employees of the USAFLS (likely US Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida) dated November 20, 2008. The correspondence concerns a 'Response to Florida Bar Complaint,' indicating a legal challenge against one of the attorneys. The sender requests a colleague to PDF the document and send it to a personal Hotmail account, notes that a judge continued a hearing, and ends with a personal 'I luv u,' suggesting a close relationship between the parties.
DOJ-OGR-00033272.tif
This document is an 'IMPORTANT MESSAGE' slip, likely a phone message, indicating that 'Dolich Wuss' is 'OVER IN COURT'. The message instructs 'Haa' to 'report this to judge', with 'PLEASE CALL' and 'RUSH' marked, suggesting urgency. The date is partially obscured, but a time of 4:2? A.M. or P.M. is visible.
DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.
DOJ-OGR-00017819.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, during a recess. Ms. Sternheim raises a potential issue with the government's next witness, Matt, noting that his prior statements regarding a conversation with another individual, Jane, do not fully align with the direct examination. This suggests a potential challenge to the witness's credibility or the consistency of his testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014846.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 22, 2022, documents a hearing for Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests she be designated to the women's prison facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program; the court agrees to recommend this to the Bureau of Prisons. Subsequently, the government's counsel, Ms. Moe, moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments, a motion which the court grants.
DOJ-OGR-00014845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, regarding her client Ms. Maxwell's sentence. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized,' but the Court counters that other assets exist and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00008610.jpg
This document is page 72 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. 50, which directs the jury not to draw inferences from uncalled witnesses who were mentioned during the trial but did not testify. It further emphasizes that the defendant bears no burden to call witnesses or produce evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008581.jpg
This document is page 43 of a court filing (Instruction No. 31) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the legal definition of 'Conspiracy' under Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, specifically regarding Counts One, Three, and Five of the indictment. The instruction explains to the jury that conspiracy is an independent offense and that Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crimes were not actually committed.
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-00008548.jpg
This document is page 10 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 3, which strictly prohibits jurors from using social media, the internet, or electronic devices to communicate about the case or conduct outside research during deliberations. The instruction emphasizes that the verdict must be based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00008533.jpg
This document is Page 77 (marked 76 internally) of a court filing dated December 17, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 58 for the trial of Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The instruction directs jurors to determine guilt based solely on evidence and explicitly prohibits them from considering potential punishment during deliberations, noting that sentencing is the sole responsibility of the judge.
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-00008414.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on December 17, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and two defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Menninger, regarding the scope of their opening statements. The defense argues that the government's indictment includes a conspiracy charge involving unnamed individuals, which makes evidence beyond the four main accusers relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00001926.jpg
This legal document discusses cases involving Khashoggi, Bodmer, Hanson, and Sabhnani. It mentions a defendant who is a citizen of England and France and has three passports, and the document discusses the defendant's international travel and financial means.
DOJ-OGR-00001067.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, capturing an attorney's argument during a bail hearing. The attorney contends that stringent bail conditions can mitigate flight risk without a prolonged hearing on the defendant's assets, citing an observation by Judge Raggi in a previous case. The attorney also informs the presiding judge of forthcoming significant motions that could challenge the indictment itself, urging the court to consider this when weighing the evidence for the bail determination.
DOJ-OGR-00001053.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript dated April 1, 2021, where an attorney argues about bail conditions for a defendant. The attorney references several legal precedents (Khashoggi, Bodmer, Hanson, Sabhnani) to assert that international ties and financial means should lead to stricter bail conditions, not a denial of bail. The current defendant is described as a citizen of England and France with three passports, who has traveled internationally and has financial means, and the attorney cites the Sabhnani case, which involved allegations of holding individuals in slavery, to support their argument regarding bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001007.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770. The judge begins by confirming that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has a working audio and video connection. The discussion then turns to a technical issue raised by Ms. Moe, who reports that the public call-in line is full, and the court expresses concern about an alternative listening arrangement involving a speakerphone.
DOJ-OGR-00000656.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding where an unnamed speaker argues for the court's supervision of an investigation into components of the Department of Justice. The speaker highlights the 'dreadful' and 'disgraceful' conditions of the local jail where Jeffrey Epstein was held, claiming they are worse than at Guantanamo. The core argument is that court oversight is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system and to uncover the truth about the situation.
DOJ-OGR-00000655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, where a lawyer, Mr. Weingarten, argues that the court has the authority and public duty to investigate the death of his client, Jeffrey Epstein. Weingarten emphasizes the intense public interest and conspiracy theories surrounding the death, and specifically references a prior incident on July 23, 2019, described as an alleged attempted suicide, as a matter the court had already shown interest in.
DOJ-OGR-00000615.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 6, 2019, detailing a conversation between the judge and defense counsel, Mr. Weinberg, about scheduling a trial. Mr. Weinberg requests a preliminary trial date after Labor Day to allow time to assess his client, Mr. Epstein's, 'ability'. The judge questions this request in light of a presumed desire for a speedy trial, to which Weinberg responds by citing the length of the trial and the timing of discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00000604.jpg
This document is a "NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT" from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on July 26, 2019, in the case of United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 19CR490). It announces the filing of an official transcript for a hearing held on July 18, 2019, and details the procedures and deadlines for parties to request redactions of personal data identifiers from the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00000405.jpg
This document is a Notice of Filing of Official Transcript in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN (Case No.: 19CR490), filed on July 16, 2019. It announces the filing of a transcript for a conference held on July 8, 2019, and details the procedures and responsibilities for redacting personal data from the transcript before it becomes publicly available.
DOJ-OGR-00030369.jpg
This legal document, dated July 26, 2017, is a sentencing computation form for a criminal case. It calculates a total of 56.7 sentence points, which corresponds to a lowest permissible prison sentence of 21.5 months. However, due to a mitigated departure and a plea bargain, the actual sentence imposed was 12 months in county jail, followed by community control and probation.
Defense regarding $10,000 payment
Epstein told the judge that the $10,000 he'd returned was actually the payment for a horse Stroll had sold him.
Jury Instructions
Instruction to avoid media, not communicate about the case, and contact Ms. Williams for issues.
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.
Jury Charge / Deliberation Instructions
Instructions regarding the necessity of a unanimous verdict, prohibition on revealing vote splits, role of the foreperson, and requirement for courtesy.
Objection Ruling
Judge sustains an objection regarding the line of questioning, prohibiting the attorney from drawing associations with other defendants the witness has testified for to avoid prejudice under Rule 403.
Jury Charge / Concluding Remarks
Instructions regarding note-taking, requesting transcripts, and the standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) for the verdict.
Jury's consideration of evidence and actions of counsel/j...
The judge instructs the jury not to draw inferences from lawyers' objections or the judge's rulings. The jury is told that their own recollection of facts governs, and that statements by counsel are not evidence. The judge also clarifies that any instructions to witnesses were for clarity and should not imply any bias.
Instruction No. 2. Role of the jury.
The judge instructs the jury on their role. They must follow the law as given by the judge, act as the sole judges of the facts based only on evidence, determine witness credibility, and understand that lawyers' statements are not evidence.
Preliminary instructions for trial conduct and courtroom ...
The judge instructs the jury not to discuss the case with anyone and to have no contact with the parties or counsel. The judge also explains the COVID-19 safety measures in place, such as witnesses and lawyers using a Plexiglas box with a HEPA filter.
Definition and proper use of inferences in jury deliberation
The judge defines what a legal inference is, explains that the jury must decide which inferences to draw from the evidence, and provides specific instructions on impermissible inferences, particularly regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
Instructions on burden of proof, presumption of innocence...
The judge explains to the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent, the government has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant has no obligation to prove their innocence. The judge also outlines their own role in applying the law and the jury's role in deciding the facts.
Instructions on evidence and jury duties
The judge explains the jury's role as the 'triers of fact,' defines what constitutes legal evidence (testimony, documents, stipulations), and distinguishes it from things that are not evidence (arguments, statements, questions).
Jury Instructions on Evidence and Witness Privacy
Instructions on evaluating testimony, keeping an open mind, and the use of pseudonyms for witnesses due to media attention.
Deliberation Schedule
Instructions regarding the schedule for deliberations until a verdict is reached and procedure for reporting scheduling hardships.
Post-verdict legal argument
Mr. Shechtman argues against the government's position that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a strategic choice regarding a juror. He contends the acquittal was due to a split verdict caused by a partisan juror who failed to persuade others, not because Mr. Parse benefited from her presence.
Jury Deliberation and Verdict Procedure
The judge instructs the jury on the requirement for a unanimous verdict, the procedure for filling out the verdict form, how to notify the marshal, the importance of courtesy during deliberations, and asks them to wait for a side bar conference to conclude.
Jury Deliberation and Verdict Procedure
The judge instructs the jury on the requirement for a unanimous verdict, the procedure for filling out the verdict form, how to notify the marshal, the importance of courtesy during deliberations, and asks them to wait for a side bar conference to conclude.
Jury Instructions regarding media influence
Instruction to the jury to disregard media attention when evaluating evidence or witness credibility.
Instruction No. 3: Contact with Others/Social Media
An instruction to the jury prohibiting any communication or research about the case using external sources, including electronic devices and social media, during deliberations. Jurors are only allowed to discuss the case with fellow jurors in the jury room.
Verdict Instructions and Sidebar
Instructions regarding unanimous verdicts, the role of the foreperson, maintaining courtesy, and a pause for a sidebar conference.
Logistics for Monday / Jury Voir Dire
Instructions regarding the assembly of jurors, video feed usage, and specific questions to be asked regarding media exposure and impartiality.
Closing remarks/Thanks
Thanking participants for following rules and instructions and supporting the trial by jury system.
Dispute over arrest details
Defense argues the government misrepresented the client's behavior during arrest as fleeing rather than following security protocol.
Reply to Response to Motion
A letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's side replying to the USA's response to her motion.
Dismissal instructions
Instructions regarding diligence and dismissal for the day.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity