the defense
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing parties |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chapell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense motion to exclude testimony | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The filing of a superseding indictment and the addition of Accuser-4, which expanded the scope of... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing where the defense raised numerous arguments. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense filed a Renewed Bail Application asking the Court to reverse its prior decision. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal request | The defendant made a request to the court to seal the voir dire materials, including the joint ju... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | The Government and the defense conferred and reached an agreement about redactions for exhibits G... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell proposed detailed questions regarding sexual abuse history for potential jurors. | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The process of jury selection (voir dire) for the trial. The Government is arguing about the proc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document is an instruction for the jury during a trial, identified by case number 1:20-cr-003... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | The court orders the government to work with the defense to provide adequate communication betwee... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court action | The Court denied the defense request for relief regarding the isolation of statements in the firs... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | Parties are ordered to confer and prepare a stipulation that Government Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 5... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A summation is being given in a criminal trial where the defense has attacked the credibility of ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense filed a 'Renewed Bail Motion' complaining about the volume of evidence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding / trial | Discussion of procedures for providing trial exhibits (slides) to the public following closing ar... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal conference | A conference held on November 23rd where the limiting instruction was previously discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses procedures for an upcoming trial, specifically the opening statements and ... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense filed a 'Renewed Bail Motion' complaining that the documentary evidence produced is n... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Jane was questioned by the defense about an application and a legal document (an interrogatory) i... | courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Proposal for the defense to file discovery-related motions, including those related to the nonpro... | THE COURT | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A legal argument occurred where the Court rejected the defense's proposed jury instructions conce... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses preparations and rules for an upcoming trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Inspection availability | An item was made available for inspection by Ms. Moe's side. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018277.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.
DOJ-OGR-00015136.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, describes Ghislaine Maxwell's role in facilitating sexual abuse with Jeffrey Epstein, including recruiting vulnerable girls and paying them for "massages." It details the timeline of Maxwell's unsuccessful post-trial motions in early 2022, which were largely denied by Judge Nathan. The document concludes by noting Maxwell's sentencing hearing on June 28, 2022, where the government sought a sentence of at least 360 months.
DOJ-OGR-00014944.jpg
This document is page 68 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on expert analysis of 'Victim Selection' and the 'grooming process,' discussing scientific literature and professional agreement regarding behaviors used by offenders to build trust and attachment.
DOJ-OGR-00008516.jpg
This document is page 60 of court filing 562 (Jury Instructions) from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' explaining to the jury how to logically deduce facts from evidence versus guessing. Crucially, it instructs the jury that they cannot infer Maxwell's guilt based solely on her presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008442.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on December 19, 2021, outlines a joint proposal by the prosecution and defense regarding the timing of public access to trial slides. The parties agree to release the slides after the conclusion of the trial day to balance public access with the privacy of victims and the defendant's right to a fair trial. A footnote reveals a disagreement over an alternative proposal by the Government to provide redacted printed slides to the public before summation, which the defense opposes.
DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a joint proposal from the prosecution and defense regarding the presentation of closing arguments. The parties argue that alternatives like toggling monitors or using printed binders for the jury are unworkable due to potential interruptions, logistical difficulties, and the risk of inadvertently exposing sealed material, which would violate the privacy of victims and third parties. They propose instead to provide redacted copies of their presentation slides to the public on the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00008363.jpg
This document is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 14, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order directs the Government to respond to a letter from the Defense regarding witnesses by 10:00 p.m. that day. It also orders the Defense to provide its anticipated witness order to the Court by 12:00 p.m. the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00008358.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 12, 2021, is a request from the Government to the Court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government asks the Court to order the defense to provide a chronologically ordered witness list by specific deadlines, arguing that the alphabetical list of thirty-five witnesses already provided is insufficient for trial preparation. The Government contrasts this with its own prior, more detailed disclosures to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg
This document is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. The transcript records the adjournment of the proceedings, with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday with plans to reconvene the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
This legal document is a memorandum of law, likely from the prosecution, arguing for the admission of an exhibit (GX 52) into evidence. It counters a defense objection that the witness, Mr. Alessi, cannot authenticate the exhibit because he has no personal knowledge of its creation. The memorandum cites several legal precedents to support the argument that a document can be authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4) based on its distinctive characteristics or a witness's general familiarity, even without direct observation of its creation.
DOJ-OGR-00008303.jpg
This legal document is a Memorandum Opinion & Order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 9, 2021. The judge overrules the Defense's objections to the admission of Government Exhibit 52 on grounds of authentication and hearsay. The ruling follows testimony from the Government's authenticating witness, Juan Alessi, and establishes the legal standard for the evidence's admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00001176.jpg
This page from a government legal filing addresses defense complaints regarding discovery access and confinement conditions. The government asserts that a hard drive malfunction was caused by the defendant dropping it and that she currently has full access to materials. It also defends her confinement conditions at the MDC, detailing privileges such as 13 hours out of cell daily, private shower, computer access, and television, arguing these are superior to general population conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001169.jpg
This court document outlines the Government's argument regarding the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) bail application, focusing on her financial assets and lack of candor. It alleges she transferred the majority of her wealth (over $20 million brought to the marriage versus her husband's $200k) into trusts for her spouse to hide assets, including funds used to buy her New Hampshire hideout. The text highlights discrepancies between her actual wealth and what she disclosed to Pretrial Services.
DOJ-OGR-00000921.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Procedural History) dated April 1, 2021, detailing the arrest and bail applications regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her arrest on July 2, 2020, the government's allegations that she groomed minors for Jeffrey Epstein, and the subsequent legal motions leading to her detention order following a Zoom hearing where no accusers testified.
DOJ-OGR-00000849.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 21-770) detailing legal proceedings in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell between July and August 2020. It includes a judicial order rejecting a defense request regarding protective orders to safeguard witness privacy, followed by a log of subsequent letter motions and responses regarding discovery disclosure filed by defense attorneys Christian Everdell and Jeffrey Pagliuca, and government attorney Alex Rossmiller. The document tracks the procedural back-and-forth regarding the handling of sensitive discovery materials and protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00000788.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the prosecution's (Government's) argument against granting bail to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The Government cites Epstein's vast wealth ($559M), a history of witness obstruction, and recent suspicious wire transfers totaling $350,000 to a potential co-conspirator as evidence that his proposed release conditions are 'woefully inadequate' and that he poses a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000786.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, outlines the U.S. Government's argument against granting pretrial release to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The Government asserts he is an extraordinary flight risk due to his wealth, access to private planes, and the long potential prison sentence he faces. The document also provides background on Epstein's past legal issues, including a 2005 investigation, a 2007 non-prosecution agreement, and a 2008 guilty plea in Florida, contrasting the prosecution's view with the defense's claim that Epstein is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 6, 2019. In it, a representative for the government, Ms. Moe, proposes a detailed schedule to the court for the defense to file discovery-related and pretrial motions, with corresponding deadlines for the government's responses. Ms. Moe concludes by requesting that the court schedule a trial for June of the following year.
DOJ-OGR-00000522.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. A prosecutor is arguing to a judge that the defendant should be detained, citing evidence of witness tampering through payments to associates, and highlighting that the defendant is an 'extraordinary flight risk' due to his immense wealth (over $500 million), six homes, two private islands, and a residence in France.
DOJ-OGR-00000474.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, outlines the arguments concerning the pretrial release of the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The Government contends he is an extraordinary flight risk due to his wealth, access to private planes, and the lengthy potential prison sentence, citing a history of investigations for sex offenses starting around 2005. The Defense counters by arguing that Mr. Epstein's compliance with his sex-offender registration mitigates any danger and that he has never attempted to flee the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00018869.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which the judge outlines a specific limiting instruction for the jury. The instruction concerns upcoming testimony from a witness about sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico. The judge clarifies that this specific conduct is not the 'illegal sexual activity' charged in the indictment and provides guidance on how the jury may consider this testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018864.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 dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.
DOJ-OGR-00018756.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Court, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding deadlines for submitting briefs and the results of a factual investigation concerning a male witness. The text also addresses a conflict where the defense has moved to preclude this witness's testimony while simultaneously holding him under a defense subpoena.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity