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-00017353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, and the Court regarding the trial schedule, particularly concerning holiday plans and the jury's commitment through January 15th. The Judge decides to proceed with the trial every day, overriding preferences for a break, due to the significant concern that a participant testing positive for COVID-19 would cause a substantial quarantine delay, which is deemed a greater risk to the trial's progress.
DOJ-OGR-00017288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule around the Christmas holiday. The main point of discussion is whether to offer the jury the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, and the importance of informing them promptly to allow for personal arrangements, such as childcare.
DOJ-OGR-00017287.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim) regarding the scheduling of jury deliberations. The judge sets the hours for the following day and considers the possibility of the jury working on an upcoming Thursday, noting that the court is not always closed before Christmas Eve.
DOJ-OGR-00017284.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and several individuals, likely attorneys, regarding testimony from 'Carolyn' and 'Special Agent Jason Richards' concerning an exhibit. The discussion concludes with a request for court notes, which the judge agrees to provide after redacting the jury foreperson's signature.
DOJ-OGR-00017269.jpg
This document is page 3082 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains the judge's charge to the jury, instructing them to reach a verdict based solely on evidence and the law, without being swayed by sympathy or consequences. The text also outlines the protocol for deliberations, emphasizing that every juror should be heard, no one should dominate the room, and jurors should be open to changing their views while maintaining honest convictions.
DOJ-OGR-00017234.jpg
This document is page 213 of 257 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 33 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the legal elements of 'Conspiracy to violate federal law.' The text explains that the essence of conspiracy is the agreement itself, regardless of whether the ultimate crime was successfully committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017209.jpg
This document is a page from a judge's charge to the jury in a criminal case, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury not to be swayed by lawyers' objections or the judge's own rulings and comments, emphasizing that these are matters of legal procedure. The judge stresses that the jury's own recollection of the facts is what governs their decision-making and that statements from counsel are not evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013979.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the moment attorney Ms. Sternheim proffers Professor Elizabeth Loftus as an expert witness on memory science. After the court overrules an objection from Ms. Pomerantz and accepts Loftus as an expert, she begins her testimony by explaining to the jury that human memory is a complex, multi-stage process and not a simple recording device.
DOJ-OGR-00013531.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' recollection of being shown two defense photographs (LV3A and LV3B) and a person in them who shares a first name with someone named Jane. Rodgers confirms they met Jane before meeting the person in the photographs.
DOJ-OGR-00013291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate over whether employee insurance records from Mar-a-Lago (Government Exhibit 824) can be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are kept for business purposes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain inadmissible hearsay. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before ruling on their admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00013290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether an insurance form can be used as evidence. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that a form filled out by Mar-a-Lago employee Sky Roberts for Virginia Roberts is not a business record of Mar-a-Lago and cannot prove Virginia Roberts' employment there. The government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, contends the form is relevant because it shows Virginia Roberts was the dependent of a Mar-a-Lago employee, while the judge notes the records do not directly support claims of her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00010764.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 29, 2022. The respondent, Juror ID 2, affirms that they have no beliefs that would prevent them from rendering a verdict in a criminal case. The juror also confirms their acceptance of fundamental legal principles, including the roles of the judge and jury, the presumption of innocence for the defendant, and the government's burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00010760.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which commenced on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts in the indictment against Maxwell for allegedly conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity. The document also affirms that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00010222.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of a witness or potential juror regarding a jury selection questionnaire they completed on November 4, 2021. The inquiry specifically focuses on question 48, which pertains to whether the individual, their friends, or family have ever been victims of sexual harassment or assault.
DOJ-OGR-00010181.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 22, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Shechtman, is arguing before a judge, refuting the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a particular juror. Shechtman contends that the acquittal was the result of a split verdict caused by a single 'partisan' juror who was unable to convince the rest of the jury to convict, and that this outcome was not a benefit derived from her presence.
DOJ-OGR-00010115.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula poses a hypothetical question about what steps Berke would take if he discovered that a juror, specifically Juror No. 1, was a suspended attorney named Catherine Conrad. Berke refuses to answer the question, stating it is a far-fetched and speculative scenario that he has never experienced.
DOJ-OGR-00010114.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning, likely by an attorney named Mr. Okula, centers on whether Berke made an assessment of potential juror misconduct involving a juror and a suspended attorney with a similar name. Berke repeatedly states an unwillingness to speculate and claims that, based on personal experience, no issue was apparent at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg
This document is page 365 of a court transcript (filed Aug 22, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman by an attorney named Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on Schoeman's failure to seek more information to verify if 'Juror No. 1' was a suspended attorney, specifically discussing a 'Catherine Conrad' as an example of identity verification using names and middle initials. Okula concludes his questioning at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010099.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of Mr. Schoeman, a lawyer and partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankl. Mr. Schoeman details his professional history, including his firm's representation of Raymond Craig Brubaker in a prior trial alongside his partner, Barry Berke. The questioning then focuses on a specific event on May 11, 2011, when the court read a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad.
DOJ-OGR-00010088.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition or court transcript where a witness named Edelstein is being questioned. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness on May 12th of an investigation conducted by a colleague, Theresa Trzaskoma, regarding a 'suspended lawyer'. Edelstein admits to knowing about the suspended lawyer on that date but denies being aware of Trzaskoma's investigation itself.
DOJ-OGR-00010056.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript detailing the redirect and recross-examination of a witness named Brune. Brune justifies not investigating a matter further by explaining that a document, which they viewed as similar to a credit report, only confirmed a pre-existing belief about two individuals sharing a name. The questioning then shifts, with attorney Mr. Schectman asking about redacted Social Security numbers on a document that Brune has seen in its unredacted form.
DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a 'Ms. Edelstein' inquired about a 'suspension opinion'. The transcript captures legal objections from attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis regarding the accuracy of a date (May 12th) and leading questions, with the judge clarifying the nature of the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00010025.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding, likely a deposition or court transcript, featuring a direct examination by 'Brune' of a speaker identified as 'C2GFDAU1'. The discussion revolves around a past court event where a judge had to restart jury deliberations due to a juror's illness, which coincided with Mr. Rosenbaum having to leave. The witness explains why they did not raise a particular issue with the Court at an earlier time.
DOJ-OGR-00010014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-03388-LAK) featuring the direct examination of an individual named Brune. The testimony focuses on the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically discussing a joint defense agreement and the reliance on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge when challenging potential jurors. The witness is also asked if they recall a 'Mr. Aponte' and a juror with a criminal background.
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