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-00009783.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 24, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to Question 51, indicating that they do not require any of their answers to remain confidential or private from the public record.
DOJ-OGR-00009767.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for Juror 50 in case 2:20-cr-00030-ABN, filed on March 24, 2022. The juror indicates they have no feelings or opinions about law enforcement searches or expert witnesses that would affect their impartiality. The juror also affirms they have no reservations about their ability to follow strict instructions to avoid all media and not discuss the case outside the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00009765.jpg
This document is page 8 (filed as page 7 of 30) of a completed juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror confirms they have no beliefs preventing them from rendering a verdict, agrees to follow the judge's instructions on the law, and accepts the presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00009761.jpg
This document is a summary of the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, provided as part of a juror questionnaire for her trial commencing on November 29, 2021. It outlines the six counts in the indictment, which accuse Maxwell of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice, transport, and traffic minors for criminal sexual activity. The document also reminds potential jurors that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00009728.jpg
This document is page 36 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents a legal argument specifically concerning 'Juror No. 50,' asserting that had the juror answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, they would have been challenged for cause. The text relies heavily on case law citations (McDonough, Wainwright, Stewart) to define legal standards for juror impartiality and materiality of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009669.jpg
This document is page 8 of a jury questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 9, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to questions regarding bias against law enforcement searches (Q15), bias regarding expert witnesses (Q16), and concerns about following instructions to avoid media coverage (Q17). The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009663.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which began on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts against Maxwell related to conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for sexual activity between 1994 and 2004. The document also reminds the potential juror that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing an argument by an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, before a judge. Shechtman refutes the government's claim that his client, Mr. Parse, benefited from a "partisan" juror, arguing instead that the resulting split verdict was due to this juror's inability to persuade others to convict, not because her presence was advantageous to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 24, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Berke by an attorney, Mr. Okula. Mr. Okula questions Berke about a hypothetical situation involving a suspended attorney, Catherine Conrad, serving as Juror No. 1. Berke repeatedly refuses to answer, calling the scenario 'far-fetched' and an attempt to make him speculate on an experience he's never had.
DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Schoeman. An attorney questions Schoeman on whether his analysis regarding Juror No. 1 would have been improved by knowing the juror was a suspended attorney. Schoeman defends his conclusion based on the information he had, but concedes that matching names and middle initials make it statistically likely two records refer to the same person.
DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or court proceeding, where attorney Mr. Okula is questioning Ms. Edelstein. The questioning focuses on the ethical and professional obligations of Ms. Edelstein's firm regarding their knowledge of facts related to a 'government note' and a 'Catherine Conrad letter' before a motion was decided. Ms. Edelstein, Theresa Trzaskoma, and Susan Brune are mentioned as individuals at the firm who possessed this knowledge.
DOJ-OGR-00009377.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, capturing the testimony of a witness named Brune. During redirect and recross examination, Brune explains that a particular document resembled a credit report and merely confirmed a pre-existing belief, hence they chose not to investigate further despite their past training as an AUSA. The questioning then turns to redacted Social Security numbers on the document and what the witness learned from an unredacted version.
DOJ-OGR-00009372.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on February 24, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Brune, who is questioned about their firm's decision not to investigate potential juror misconduct by Juror No. 1, Ms. Conrad, following a verdict on May 24th. Brune states that the firm did not believe there was an issue to investigate at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00009346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct examination of Brune) designated A-5742. The testimony concerns procedural events in court, specifically the restarting of jury deliberations due to a juror's illness and the presence of alternate jurors. The witness also discusses the illness of Mr. Rosenbaum and denies withholding an issue from the Court until Rosenbaum fell ill.
DOJ-OGR-00032329.jpg
This incident report details the execution of a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's residence, where various items including a notepad, high school transcript, sexual lubricant, and photographs of naked teenage girls were found. It also describes delays in filing the search warrant and inventory due to Hurricane Wilma, necessitating an order to seal signed by Judge Johnson. The document outlines the roles of several law enforcement personnel, including an unnamed investigator, Captain Gudger, Evidence Specialist Annette Badger, CSI Kim Pavlik, and Detective Joseph Recarey, in the search and evidence collection conducted on October 20, 2005, at 358 El Brillo.
DOJ-OGR-00014637.jpg
This document is page 237 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge, specifically addressing the use of pseudonyms for witness privacy due to media attention, and 'Instruction No. 45' regarding the credibility of witnesses and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. The judge instructs the jury that prior inconsistent statements should be used to evaluate credibility, not as affirmative evidence of Maxwell's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014593.jpg
This document is page 193 of a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) containing jury instructions for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge instructs the jury on the presumption of innocence and summarizes the first two counts of the indictment: Count One regarding conspiracy to entice minors (1994-2004) and Count Two regarding the enticement of a specific individual named 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00014588.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A judge is instructing the jury on how to properly interpret courtroom proceedings, specifically warning them not to draw inferences from lawyers' objections, the judge's rulings, or sidebar discussions. The judge emphasizes that the jury's own recollection of the facts is what governs their decision-making and that they are the sole determiners of fact.
DOJ-OGR-00014585.jpg
This document is a jury charge from a legal proceeding, specifically Instruction No. 2 regarding the role of the jury. The judge instructs the jury that they are the exclusive judges of the facts and must base their verdict solely on the evidence presented, while also being bound to follow the law exactly as the judge provides it. The document clarifies that statements, arguments, and questions from lawyers do not constitute evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00014553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of a summation by Ms. Menninger, likely the defense attorney for a Ms. Maxwell. Menninger explains the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" to the jury, urging them to consider not just the evidence presented but also the lack of evidence, and to acquit her client if they would hesitate to make an important personal decision based on the quality of information provided by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00005352.jpg
This document is page 30 of a juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. It contains questions assessing a prospective juror's impartiality, privacy concerns regarding their answers, and willingness to adhere to court instructions regarding outside information and case discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00005303.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court filing (Document 365) from October 22, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a 'Closing Question' (renumbered from 50 to 51) for a jury questionnaire, asking jurors if they require confidentiality for any of their previous answers to protect their privacy or avoid embarrassment.
DOJ-OGR-00032879.jpg
This document is a Palm Beach Police Department incident report narrative detailing the execution of a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's residence on October 20, 2005. It describes the recovery of evidence including notepads, a high school transcript, sexual lubricant, and photographs of naked teenage girls, as well as the logistical challenges caused by Hurricane Wilma.
DOJ-OGR-00014475.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. After the jury is dismissed for lunch, an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, raises an objection to the judge concerning a statement made by opposing counsel, Ms. Moe. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Moe's assertion during closing arguments—that a massage table originating from California affects interstate commerce—is legally inaccurate and unsupported by evidence presented in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008787.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt of a judge's final instructions to a jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. The judge outlines the procedural requirements for reaching a unanimous verdict, communicating the verdict to the court via the marshal, and maintaining courtesy and respect during deliberations. The judge also informs the jury of a brief pause for a side bar conference with counsel and the reporter before the case is officially submitted to them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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