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-00018468.jpg
Excerpt from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Rohrbach seeks clarification from the Judge regarding testimony about a search of the New York residence. The discussion confirms that while the government will not introduce physical exhibits of nude photos or photos of Epstein with celebrities, the witness is permitted to testify about observing these items and 'nude artwork' in the house.
DOJ-OGR-00016893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) and government counsel (Ms. Moe). The core issue is the admissibility of a deposition from Ms. Maxwell, which the government wishes to use to rebut a 'last minute' issue raised by the defense concerning Kinnerton Street property records. The defense offers to stipulate to the property records to avoid the deposition being entered and to negate the need for an additional witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016884.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the need to establish a person's residency at 44 Kinnerton. Counsel mentions a potential new witness, Mr. Moran, and the judge rules that property ownership documents are admissible as evidence to argue the inference of residency.
DOJ-OGR-00002188(1).jpg
This document is a Government filing from December 2020 opposing the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) bail application. It argues she is a flight risk who has sophisticatedly hidden her wealth by transferring millions into trusts for her spouse over the preceding five years. The text highlights a financial discrepancy where she brought over $20 million to the marriage while her spouse contributed only $200,000, and notes her 'lack of candor' with Pretrial Services regarding property ownership.
DOJ-OGR-00002174.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that contrary to the Defense's claims, the case is strong because three independent victims will testify to the specific grooming techniques used by Maxwell and Epstein, including the use of massage to transition to sexual acts and the manipulation of minors by an adult woman. The text notes that these accounts corroborate one another by describing the same course of conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00001962.jpg
This legal document from December 10, 2020, details a court's analysis of arguments from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The court dismisses the defense's claim that Maxwell is not a flight risk, finding her pre-indictment contact with the government insignificant and distinguishing her case from the legal precedent of U.S. v. Friedman. The court also suggests that Ms. Maxwell may not have fully grasped the severity of the charges against her until after she was formally indicted.
DOJ-OGR-00001951.jpg
This document is page 74 of a court transcript from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 10, 2020. A government prosecutor is arguing before the judge that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not protect the defendant (Maxwell) and asserting that the agreement does not bind the current office. The prosecutor further argues against bail, citing the defendant's extensive international ties, unknown finances, and lack of candor regarding resources to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00021416.jpg
This document, a legal filing, details disputes and communications from 2007 concerning victim notification and compensation in a federal case related to Epstein. It highlights arguments between legal figures like Lefkowitz, Starr, Acosta, and Villafaña regarding the interpretation of victim rights laws and the handling of specific victims, including 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein. The text reveals concerns about the government's adherence to victim notification requirements and allegations of misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00019139.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge rules that the government cannot use a witness with no personal experience to present a 'streamlined version of the closing argument,' distinguishing this from a Rule 1006 data summary. The parties also discuss the timing of a ruling on 'Exhibit 52' relative to when the government rests its case.
DOJ-OGR-00017025.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the schedule for closing arguments, jury instructions ('charge'), and the commencement of jury deliberations. The Judge outlines a schedule involving government arguments, a lunch break, defense arguments, rebuttal, and the potential start of deliberations that same day.
DOJ-OGR-00016924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22. It records the end of a day's proceedings where the defense (Ms. Sternheim) renews a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. The Judge coordinates scheduling for a charging conference with staff member Ms. Williams and adjourns the court until December 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016487.jpg
This legal document is a judicial ruling from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge permits the defense to ask a witness, Mr. Glassman, a single, specific question about whether he told the government that he had informed another witness, Jane, that her testimony would benefit her civil case against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's estate. The judge deems this question relevant for potential impeachment, as it could suggest a motive for Jane's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016481.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a court session where the judge confirms with counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues to discuss. The judge then adjourns the proceedings to Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00013169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Judge ('The Court') and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss a male witness who seemingly violated instructions by discussing his testimony with his sister. The Court orders the government to conduct a full investigation into this transgression and produce the facts to the defense by the end of the day.
DOJ-OGR-00009012.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Document 613) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It details the legal arguments regarding the 'voir dire' process, specifically how the defense (Maxwell) and prosecution (Government) debated the wording of questions aimed at identifying potential jurors with a history of sexual assault or abuse. The text notes that the Court eventually settled on 'Question 48' to address this issue.
DOJ-OGR-00008959.jpg
This document is page 35 of a defense motion filed on Feb 11, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for a new trial or acquittal, citing potential testimony from two witnesses, Sally Markham (property manager) and Lynn Fontanilla (housekeeper), who could have rebutted government claims about Maxwell's role as 'lady of the house' and her presence at the 71st Street townhouse. The defense contends that a 'household manual' used as evidence against Maxwell was actually created by an individual known as 'the Countess.'
DOJ-OGR-00008958.jpg
This legal document is a filing from the defense in the case against Epstein, arguing that their ability to challenge a witness named Jane's testimony was hampered. The defense claims that unavailable property records and the deaths of key witnesses, specifically architects Alberto Pinto and Roger Salhi, prevented them from proving that Epstein's properties were not constructed or occupied at the times Jane recalled, which would have cast doubt on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00019840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, detailing Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to secure bail. It outlines the court's reasons for detaining her—flight risk due to foreign citizenship (France, Britain) and unclear finances—and the defense's counter-arguments, including an offer to renounce her foreign citizenship and the assertion that witness testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein rather than her. The text notes that despite these arguments, the judge denied bail for a second time.
DOJ-OGR-00017357.jpg
A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses sustaining objections and finalizing redactions for a document. Later, following a recess, the Court reconvenes to address a note (likely from the jury) requesting the transcript of Larry Visoski (Epstein's long-time pilot), which is identified as Court Exhibit 20.
DOJ-OGR-00017312.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The court receives a note from the jury requesting the transcript of testimony provided by David Rodgers (Epstein's pilot). The Judge and counsel (Ms. Moe for the government, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim for the defense) discuss the request and the schedule for jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017254.jpg
This document is a transcript of a jury charge from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury on the legal definition of an inference, distinguishing it from speculation and explaining how to draw reasonable conclusions from evidence. The judge specifically warns the jury that they cannot find the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty based solely on her presence at and knowledge of a crime being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00013945.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a short recess where the jury and witness, Ms. Espinosa, leave the courtroom. Upon returning, the Court instructs defense attorney Mr. Everdell to continue his direct examination of Ms. Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00013877.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge's ruling. The judge denies the government's motion to preclude testimony from Dr. Loftus, an expert on 'suggestive activities,' on the condition that she testifies as a 'blind expert' without applying her opinions to the specific facts of the case. The judge finds that the defense has established a proper foundation for this testimony by cross-examining a witness, Jane, about the government's own potentially suggestive questioning tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00013583.jpg
This document is page 42 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Chapell. The testimony focuses on the witness verifying 'several hundred' invoices provided by the defense against archived business records stored in boxes in a warehouse. The witness confirms that these records pertained to two specific accounts owned by Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, addresses the judge. She discusses the issue of hearsay concerning testimony from Annie Farmer and statements made by her sister, Maria Farmer. Key points include an exception for why Annie traveled to New York, a claim by Maria about stolen photographs that were not found during a search of Mr. Epstein's home, and the fact that Maria is a practicing psychologist who has made public statements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity