court
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judicial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judicial oversight |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brune & Richard lawyers
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Parse
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell's lawyers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Giuffre
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defendant (Maxwell)
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Schulte
|
Defendant judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Sentencing Commission
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror judicial authority |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Victims asked the court to reject a plea agreement due to CVRA violations. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court accepts Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material. | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion is being considered by the Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's consideration of categories of questions Maxwell argues are ambiguous. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Argument by Maxwell that perjury counts should be dismissed due to immateriality of statements. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Amicus NACDL urges the Court to grant a petition to resolve a conflict among circuits regarding g... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court asked Belohlavek about juvenile victim's parents/guardian agreement with plea. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to join the action. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal arguments by Maxwell to dismiss indictment | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court declines to issue writ of mandamus. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court denies Maxwell's motions to consolidate as moot. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anonymous statement to the court opposing bond for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed sentencing: 30 months total, divided into 12 months and 6 months consecutive in county j... | Palm Beach County | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court declines Maxwell's motion to strike surplusage at this juncture. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell moves to strike surplusage from the S1 superseding indictment, specifically allegations r... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court favors severance, deciding to try perjury counts separately for fair and expeditious resolu... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court considers burden of separate trials for perjury and Mann Act counts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Resolution of the Defendant's motion or a hearing. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury sent a note regarding Count Four and transportation of Jane. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court rejected the defendant's request for additional instructions regarding Count Two. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (50-question survey) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing where an attorney is arguing regarding juror selection strategy and potential ineff... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021787.jpg
This document is a legal notice (NOTICE TO THE BAR) from Case 22-1426, dated 02/29/2024, outlining procedures for obtaining audio recordings of oral arguments and arranging court reporters or interpreter services. It details how to purchase argument CDs for $34 and the requirements for providing written notice and consent for court reporters or interpreter services at least one week prior to a hearing or oral argument. The document serves to inform legal professionals about these administrative processes within the court system.
DOJ-OGR-00021712.jpg
This legal document describes the statements and actions of Juror 50 in a criminal case involving a defendant named Maxwell. During jury selection, Juror 50 affirmed his impartiality and denied on a questionnaire that he or his family had ever been victims of sexual abuse or crime. However, in post-verdict interviews with journalists, he revealed he was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, stating he had "flew through" the questionnaire but believed he answered honestly.
DOJ-OGR-00017143.jpg
This document is a summation from a legal case, discussing inconsistencies and issues related to witness testimony and evidence. It questions the government's ability to corroborate stories, highlights missing diary entries from Annie Farmer, and details the interactions between various lawyers (Boies Schiller firm, Brad Edwards, Jack Scarola) and witnesses (Ms. Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Jane, Kate, Carolyn), suggesting potential 'contamination of memory' due to their communications with each other, family, and media. The document concludes by mentioning Annie Farmer's statement to the FBI regarding her story and a 'money piece' not being sexualized.
DOJ-OGR-00009220.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that Juror No. 50 should not be given access to a sealed questionnaire prior to a potential hearing, as it might allow him to fabricate excuses. The defense concludes that the prosecution is applying a double standard regarding juror misconduct and asserts that Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the juror's presence, requesting the court vacate the conviction (implied by cut-off text).
DOJ-OGR-00009058.jpg
This document is page 50 (PDF page 57) of a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a hearing to question Juror No. 50 regarding potential bias, alleging that at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire which violated Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights. The filing argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as it pertains to juror qualifications rather than the content of deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00019811.jpg
This document is a court docket log (Case 21-58) covering entries from December 10 to December 18, 2020, regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the filing of transcripts, a renewed motion for bail by Maxwell's defense (Christian Everdell), and the Court's order (Judge Alison Nathan) approving specific redactions to protect privacy interests and law enforcement integrity. The document also notes the Government's opposition to the bail application and the appearance of attorney Andrew Rohrbach for the USA.
DOJ-OGR-00019783.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet page from the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from September 8, 2020, to November 5, 2020. It details procedural events including the transmission of appeal records, the placement of sealed documents in a vault, and the appearance of attorney Bobbi Sternheim. The docket also lists a series of letters between the prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) and the defense (Everdell, Pagliuca) regarding requests to delay disclosure and investigative files, culminating in a Brady disclosure order signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019764.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from January 2021 detailing procedural events in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include the granting of laptop access for discovery review, a subsequent request by the Bureau of Prisons to vacate that order, and the filing of multiple motions by Maxwell's defense team to dismiss charges or separate trials. It also records the transmission of appeal records to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00019759.jpg
This document is a court docket log from December 2020 regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It records correspondence between the US Government (AUSAs Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz) and Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC and requests to seal certain documents. Key events include the Judge ordering MDC counsel to submit information, denying a request for an in-camera conference, approving redactions to protect privacy interests, and ordering the parties to schedule a renewed bail motion.
DOJ-OGR-00017366.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge begins by noting on the record that a report confirmed all members of the public wishing to observe the trial have been accommodated in the main courtroom or overflow rooms. The judge then asks Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell if there are any other matters before the jurors are brought in, to which they both reply in the negative.
DOJ-OGR-00010584.jpg
This document is a Government filing addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints regarding her confinement conditions at the MDC. It refutes claims about discovery access, clarifying that she was provided a laptop and ample attorney visits. It also addresses email deletions (attributing them to BOP policy or Maxwell's own actions), legal mail delivery, and justifies nighttime flashlight checks as standard safety procedures for all inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 1, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for 'Juror 50'. It outlines that Juror 50 completed a questionnaire on November 4, 2021, answering 'No' to questions 25, 48, and 49 regarding prior knowledge or conflicts, and subsequently underwent in-person voir dire on November 16, 2021. During questioning, Juror 50 admitted to seeing a CNN article about the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein but affirmed he could decide the case impartially based solely on evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 2:02-cr-00388-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Schoeman. The testimony transitions from direct examination by Mr. Shechtman to cross-examination by Mr. Okula. The questioning focuses on establishing the timeline of a conversation Schoeman had with Ms. Trzaskoma relative to the receipt of a juror's note during deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers procedural timeline issues, specifically regarding jury deliberations that lasted eight days and whether the legal team could have raised issues regarding a 'suspended attorney' with the Court prior to the verdict. It references a conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma, Barry Berke, and Paul Schoeman.
DOJ-OGR-00010012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's recollection of the jury selection process, specifically an incident involving 'Juror No. 20' who wore an FBI turtleneck to court and whose mother worked for the FBI. The questioning also probes Brune's awareness at the time that a juror might have been a suspended attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (testimony of 'Brune') filed on March 24, 2022. The testimony concerns a failure by the witness's legal team to alert Judge Pauley that a juror, Catherine Conrad (referred to as Juror No. 1), was potentially a suspended attorney. The witness admits that Ms. Trzaskoma had performed a Google search revealing this information, but the team concluded at the time it was a 'different person' and did not act on it.
DOJ-OGR-00009837.jpg
This document is page 39 of a government legal filing (Document 643) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to call all twelve jurors as witnesses to investigate potential non-disclosure of sexual abuse, labeling it a 'fishing expedition' damaging to the jury process. The text specifically addresses a New York Times article mentioning a second juror's abuse history and argues that questioning should be strictly limited to Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009749.jpg
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
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-00009335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically referencing a joint defense agreement among counsel and the collective nature of juror challenges based on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge. The questioning turns to a specific juror, Mr. Aponte, and begins to address whether he had a criminal history before the page cuts off.
DOJ-OGR-00025367.jpg
This document is an email dated August 1, 2019, from Associate Warden Charisma Edge to Lamine N'Diaye providing a synopsis of Jeffrey Epstein's recent activities and psychological status. It details that Epstein was taken off 'psych ops' on July 30, attended court on July 31, and had a Suicide Risk Assessment on August 1 which deemed him 'psychologically stable.' Crucially, the email notes the assessment was initiated because Epstein returned from court with a note indicating suicidal tendencies.
DOJ-OGR-00025321.jpg
This document is an email from July 8, 2019, where MCC New York Associate Warden Shirley Skipper-Scott forwards a message from the facility's Chief Psychologist. The original message outlines a proactive plan to conduct a suicide risk assessment on inmate Jeffrey Epstein upon his return from a court appearance, where he was expected to receive bad news. Citing numerous risk factors such as his high-profile case and sex offense charges, the psychologist instructs staff to place Epstein on psychological observation or suicide watch until a full assessment can be completed.
DOJ-OGR-00005573.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the court's ruling on the anonymity of 'Minor Victim-4' during trial. The court rejects the defense's argument that using the victim's real name is necessary for impeachment or to address allegations of suborning perjury. The ruling allows the defense to use the victim's first name and show unredacted exhibits to the jury, but prohibits saying the victim's last name out loud in court.
DOJ-OGR-00025320.jpg
This email, dated July 8, 2019, details Jeffrey Epstein's initial intake at MCC New York following his arrival on July 6, 2019. It outlines his placement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU), his arraignment, and strict protocols regarding psychological observation and suicide watch pending an assessment. The email also notes significant media presence outside the facility.
DOJ-OGR-00025318.jpg
This document is an email chain from July 8, 2019, originating from the Chief Psychologist at MCC New York regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The psychologist details a consultation with the BOP Central Office, recommending a proactive suicide risk assessment for Epstein upon his return from court because he was expected to receive 'bad news' regarding his legal situation. The email outlines protocols to place Epstein on 'Psychological Observation' or 'Suicide Watch' immediately upon his return, citing risk factors such as his high-profile case, sex offense charges, and media attention.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity