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 |
DOJ-OGR-00020916.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which was set to begin on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts in the indictment against Maxwell for crimes allegedly committed between 1994 and 2004. The charges include conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00019000.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The testimony covers standard procedures involving an employee named Mr. Alessi in Palm Beach and specifically details a flight (Flight 979) on May 9, 1997. The flight traveled from Teterboro, NJ, to Santa Fe, NM, carrying Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and a passenger identified as 'Jane' to Epstein's Zorro Ranch.
DOJ-OGR-00018879.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal debate between attorneys Rohrbach and Sternheim before a judge regarding the admissibility of an insurance form containing a statement by a 'Mr. Roberts'. The discussion centers on whether the act of providing insurance and paying medical bills through Mar-a-Lago constitutes a course of conduct, and whether a witness can be questioned about practices that occurred before their time of involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018460.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms with the court and opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, an agreement regarding the '900 series' of exhibits. Following this, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins to make a request for the court to order the government to disclose certain information.
DOJ-OGR-00018452.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on whether Kate has applied for a U visa, a special visa for victims who assist the government. Kate states she made an inquiry but is unsure if she filled out an application and explicitly denies wanting the U visa.
DOJ-OGR-00018417.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's past acting career, specifically her roles as an extra. The examination is interrupted by a procedural issue when Ms. Sternheim refers to an exhibit, 'defense K7', which is missing from the binders of both the witness and the judge.
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-00002122.jpg
This document is a table from a legal filing dated December 14, 2020, which outlines the timelines and procedures for extradition cases under the UK's Extradition Act 2003. It details the various stages, including sending the case to the Secretary of State, the order for extradition, and the processes for removal and appeal, citing specific sections of the act. The table distinguishes between procedures for cases where there is an appeal and cases where there is no appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00002100.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, details the procedural steps of an extradition hearing in the United Kingdom. It explains the specific legal questions a judge must resolve, including technical compliance and human rights compatibility, before a case can proceed. If the judge approves the extradition request, the case is then sent to the Secretary of State, who must consider a different set of potential bars before issuing a final extradition order.
DOJ-OGR-00021632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge confirms with defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, that there are no objections to the supervised release conditions recommended by the Probation Department. The judge also clarifies that although Count Six involves mandatory restitution, the government's position is that none should be ordered because all victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00021629.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. Maxwell's attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Maxwell is not a danger and should not receive a life sentence. The judge then addresses Maxwell directly, informing her of her right to make a statement and arranging for her to approach the podium.
DOJ-OGR-00019115.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the redirect examination of a witness named Rodgers, who is being questioned about being shown two defense photographs and their connection to an individual named Jane. The witness confirms they recall the photographs and states that they met Jane before meeting the person depicted in them.
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-00017015.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Comey. The parties agree to conduct closing arguments on the upcoming Monday and discuss the appropriate length, with the judge suggesting two hours. Ms. Comey notes the preparation is still cumbersome due to exhibits that were intentionally reserved for the closing arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00016990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys. The judge notes the defense's strategy of questioning witnesses about victims' ages to challenge whether the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had knowledge of their ages. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, begins to raise a related evidentiary issue concerning testimony about multiple females at Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00016742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural debate between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger. The discussion centers on the defense's desire to introduce a new witness, the relevance of ownership documents, a stipulation regarding testimony from a Ms. Maxwell, and the recent discovery of a 2019 deposition of Ms. Menninger's client. The transcript highlights the strategic arguments over evidence and witness presentation during a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016656.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on a psychological study Loftus conducted, which successfully implanted false memories in participants by suggesting they had met the Warner Brothers character Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. The transcript concludes with an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, objecting to the line of questioning.
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-00016501.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. The judge is ruling to deny the government's motion to preclude the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus regarding 'suggestive activities,' provided she testifies as a 'blind expert' similar to Dr. Rocchio. The transcript mentions the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane,' focusing on suggestive questioning by the government and a specific correction regarding the release date of the movie 'The Lion King' (1997).
DOJ-OGR-00016418.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial while the jury is not present. The judge calls for a 10-minute recess after encouraging counsel to confer. Following the recess, a new witness, Mr. Mulligan, is called to the stand to be sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00009264.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Conrad, by attorneys Mr. Gair and Mr. Schectman. The questioning focuses intensely on a letter Conrad wrote to attorney Mr. Okula, specifically her choice of postage stamp and her decision to capitalize the words "our government," probing her motivations and opinions about other individuals involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009074.jpg
This document is page 7 (internal pagination -8-) of a filled-out juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Juror ID 50 answers 'No' to having beliefs that prevent rendering a verdict, 'Yes' to accepting the Judge's authority on the law, and 'Yes' to accepting the presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00009070.jpg
This document is a summary of a criminal case for prospective jurors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which was set to begin on November 29, 2021. It outlines the six counts against Maxwell, alleging she conspired with and aided Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking. The document reminds jurors that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00017365.jpg
This document is page 122 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a brief exchange where Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar with the Judge to discuss an issue, which the Court grants. The document notes that the subsequent pages containing the sidebar discussion (pages 123-125) are sealed.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
Jury Charge / Concluding Remarks
Instructions regarding note-taking, requesting transcripts, and the standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) for the verdict.
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 Instructions regarding media influence
Instruction to the jury to disregard media attention when evaluating evidence or witness credibility.
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.
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