district court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Judicial hierarchy review |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judge juror inquiry |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Weingarten
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Litigant judiciary |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Punn
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Appellate Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant court |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant court motions denied |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror Payton
|
Participant in court proceedings |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court failed to hold a hearing on the scope of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The District Court applied Annabi's rule of construction without holding a hearing. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A legal trial where evidence was presented, a summation was given by the Government, and jury ins... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire process during which Juror 50 was questioned. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Post-trial hearing where the court examined Juror 50. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court following a special evidentiary... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | The District Court's sentencing of Maxwell, which is being reviewed and upheld in this document. ... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The holding that the District Court did not err in applying a leadership enhancement or in explai... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion for a new trial denied by District Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury sent a note regarding clarification on Count Four of the Indictment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury instruction on Count Four, requiring finding that Maxwell transported Jane for sexual activity. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell sentenced to 240 months imprisonment (above guidelines range of 188-235 months). | Court | View |
| N/A | Post-trial hearing | A hearing conducted by the District Court where it allegedly abused its discretion by limiting th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell appealed the District Court's denial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court denies Maxwell's motion for a new trial. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | A court holds that the District Court did not err in applying a leadership enhancement or in expl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court finding that USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). | Unknown | View |
| 2023-01-16 | N/A | Post-verdict hearing | Court | View |
| 2022-10-20 | Legal proceeding | An appellate court filed this document affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction agai... | N/A | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | The District Court issued a judgment of conviction against Maxwell, which is being affirmed by th... | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | District Court judgment of conviction (Sentencing). | SDNY | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | District Court judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal judgment | The District Court's judgment of conviction for Maxwell was issued. | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Judgment of conviction entered by the District Court. | District Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | The District Court issued a judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014858.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (filed Dec 2, 2024) summarizing the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's post-trial motions. It details the controversy surrounding 'Juror 50,' who testified on March 8, 2022, that inaccuracies in his jury questionnaire regarding past sexual abuse were inadvertent mistakes. The court found the juror credible and denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, subsequently sentencing her to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00014857.jpg
This page from a legal document details the conclusion of a trial against a defendant named Maxwell, who was found guilty of multiple charges on December 29, 2021. The document's primary focus is on a post-verdict issue involving 'Juror 50', who revealed in press interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, directly contradicting his 'no' answers to related questions on his pre-trial jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00014855.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell. The background section details Maxwell's role in coordinating and facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of young women and underage girls from 1994 until about 2004. It also mentions Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00014854.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, and confirms that the statute of limitations was not violated. The document also notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000 and denied a new trial regarding juror conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00014804.jpg
This document is page 57 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing or trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text captures a prosecutor's argument detailing specific acts of abuse committed by Maxwell, including groping a 16-year-old at a ranch, teaching a 14-year-old sexual acts, and procuring girls for her 'boyfriend' (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein). The speaker emphasizes Maxwell's predatory nature, her indifference to the suffering of vulnerable girls from struggling families, and her active role in trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 550) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The Government argues regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence for impeaching a witness, specifically noting that the prior inconsistent statements come from FBI 302 reports written by agents, not the witness herself. The document cites various legal precedents to argue that if a witness admits to an inconsistency found in '3500 material' (Jencks Act material), no further extrinsic evidence is needed.
DOJ-OGR-00008349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The speaker (the Judge) is outlining logistics for the following Monday regarding jury management. The plan involves assembling jurors in two separate courtrooms connected by video feed, asking them two specific questions regarding their exposure to media about the case and their ability to remain impartial, and subsequently exercising peremptory challenges.
DOJ-OGR-00001772.jpg
This document is a receipt from the District Court, dated September 9, 2020, confirming a payment of $505.00 by Ghislane Maxwell. The payment was for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' related to case number 20CR00330 and was processed by cashier Swooten.
DOJ-OGR-00001736.jpg
This is the final page (page 5) of a legal filing by the US Attorney's Office in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues that the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in separate civil cases should be denied because the materials are irrelevant to the civil litigation and the request attempts to bypass a protective order. The Government asserts the defendant is attempting to use these materials merely to attack the Government in a forum where it cannot respond.
DOJ-OGR-00001625.jpg
This document is page 15 of a Government memorandum filed on July 13, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The prosecution argues against granting bail, citing that the MDC is adequately handling COVID-19 risks and referencing legal precedents where bail was denied despite the pandemic. A footnote emphasizes the Government's position that the defendant has the financial means to flee the country and that pandemic travel restrictions would not prevent her flight.
DOJ-OGR-00001466.jpg
This document is a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued on June 7, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court affirms the District Court's previous orders denying Maxwell's requests for bail pending trial. The mandate also notes that any concerns regarding Maxwell's sleeping conditions while incarcerated should be addressed to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001461.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes claims made by an inmate named Maxwell regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC. It distinguishes her situation from a case involving Tiffany Days, who experienced sewage flooding at a different facility (the MCC), and argues there is no evidence of such issues at the MDC. The document also counters Maxwell's claim of being in "solitary confinement" by detailing her daily access to a day room and various amenities for thirteen hours.
DOJ-OGR-00001460.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) argues that Judge Nathan acted within her discretion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. It asserts that Maxwell failed to provide evidence that MDC protocols interfered with her trial preparation. The document dismisses Maxwell's complaints about conditions—specifically regarding undrinkable water, inadequate food, audio recording of legal visits, and sewage overflows—as bare assertions without evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001459.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial release and confinement conditions. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove MDC security protocols interfere with her trial preparation and addresses specific disputes regarding 'nighttime checks' with flashlights and the use of eye coverings. A lengthy footnote clarifies a previous inaccuracy regarding Maxwell's use of an eye mask and defends the Government against accusations of misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00001458.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing from May 27, 2021, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints regarding her detention conditions at the MDC. It details Judge Nathan's review of Maxwell's request to stop 15-minute nighttime flashlight checks (increased from the standard 30 minutes). The text argues these checks are justified due to suicide risk factors, including her isolation without a cellmate and the stress of a high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a renewed motion for temporary release by an individual named Maxwell. The Court bases its decision on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided any compelling new reasons, such as new evidence or a change in law, to warrant a reversal of its prior decision. The document dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding a recent letter briefing and a prior order by Judge Nathan, concluding that there was no error in the original determination that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001455.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely a government opposition brief) from May 27, 2021, regarding case 21-770. It argues that there are no grounds to overturn Judge Nathan's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail, noting that MDC security protocols do not interfere with her trial preparation. It also argues that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' is procedurally improper and untimely under appellate rules.
DOJ-OGR-00001450.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, discussing the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. It details a May 5, 2021, letter from the Government to Judge Nathan explaining that Maxwell is subject to flashlight checks every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule,' compared to every 30 minutes for SHU inmates and hourly for general population. The document asserts these checks are for safety purposes, specifically to ensure the inmate is breathing and not in distress, noting that while Maxwell is not on suicide watch, her high-profile charges warrant increased monitoring.
DOJ-OGR-00001449.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, related to Case 21-770 regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the procedural history of Maxwell's failed appeals for bail/pretrial release and the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decisions on April 27, 2021. The text specifically highlights Maxwell's complaints regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC, specifically '15-minute light surveillance,' and notes that the appellate court directed such specific relief requests back to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001446.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) summarizes Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The Judge cited Maxwell's 'substantial international ties,' 'extraordinary financial resources,' lack of US ties, and 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding assets as reasons she poses a significant flight risk. Additionally, the Judge rejected arguments regarding the difficulty of preparing a defense while incarcerated, though mandated that the Government ensure adequate attorney-client communication.
DOJ-OGR-00001445.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770, dated May 27, 2021) outlines the Government's argument for the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It references three denied bail applications and details a specific hearing on July 14, 2020, where Judge Nathan ruled Maxwell a flight risk based on strong evidence and the nature of the offenses. The document highlights that the indictment is supported by three victim-witnesses, corroborated by flight records and diaries.
DOJ-OGR-00001442.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement outlining the timeline of Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment and arrest in the summer of 2020. It details the six counts against her, including conspiracy to entice minors and perjury, and notes that United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denied her bail following a hearing on July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001432.jpg
This document is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 27, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court affirms the lower District Court's decisions from December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, and denies Maxwell's appeal for bail pending trial. The order also notes that Maxwell's complaints about sleep deprivation while incarcerated should be addressed to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001425.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated April 27, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court affirms the lower District Court's decisions from December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, to deny Maxwell's requests for bail pending trial. The order also notes that concerns raised by Maxwell's counsel regarding sleep deprivation during incarceration should be addressed to the District Court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity