SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00015009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on a scientific study regarding 'sexual grooming' and 'pre-offense behaviors,' specifically discussing methodology where 18 people were used to narrow a list of 77 items down to 42. The witness validates that the study in question established the content validity of a sexual grooming model.
DOJ-OGR-00015003.jpg
This document is page 127 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding the methodology of a social science study, specifically debating 'response rates' versus 'dropout rates' and the nature of an interview guide used on 22 expert subjects. The questioning attorney also makes a point about the definition and use of 'leading questions' during the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014988.jpg
This page contains a cross-examination transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. A witness named Rocchio is being questioned regarding the definition and implications of 'vulnerable populations,' specifically regarding risks of sexual abuse, physical assault, substance abuse, and school drop-out rates. Rocchio pushes back against the attorney's broad generalization of risk, emphasizing specific research contexts regarding sexual victimization.
DOJ-OGR-00014977.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Dr. Rocchio's definition of a 'child' (age of consent vs. under 18) and references a prior interview with the government on April 9, 2021, documented in '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures).
DOJ-OGR-00014973.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). The witness confirms possession of his engagement agreement and time logs, prompting defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca to request immediate production of the file. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz responds that the government has already fulfilled its Jencks Act obligations by producing notes from meetings and calls with the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00014970.jpg
This is page 94 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on Jan 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is testifying as an expert on the link between childhood sexual abuse and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The testimony covers the risk factors for PTSD and the criteria used to evaluate the scientific quality of literature and studies on the subject.
DOJ-OGR-00014963.jpg
This document is page 87 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, filed on January 15, 2025. The witness, likely a clinical expert, testifies about the commonality of 'delayed disclosure' in victims of childhood sexual abuse, noting that disclosure is often delayed when there is a close relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. The witness explains that many patients first disclose abuse as adults, though some adolescents in inpatient settings also disclose.
DOJ-OGR-00014957.jpg
This document is page 81 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features direct examination testimony from a witness named Rocchio (likely an expert psychologist), explaining that studies show adolescents (ages 12-18) are statistically much more likely to delay disclosing sexual abuse until adulthood compared to other age groups. The witness attributes this to developmental stages where adolescents prefer confiding in peers rather than adults and desire to view themselves as competent.
DOJ-OGR-00014943.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the 'victim-selection model' as the first stage of grooming, discussing how offenders choose victims based on specific vulnerability factors established by professional literature and offender interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00014922.jpg
This document is page 46 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Rocchio, is testifying about an academic study regarding 'coercive control' and victimization tactics. The Judge interrupts to ask specifically about the comparison between 'trauma bonding' and the relationship between a pimp and a sex worker.
DOJ-OGR-00014915.jpg
This document is page 39 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, a forensic expert, who explains that forensic evaluations do not automatically assume a victim's report is true. Dr. Rocchio details the methodology used to objectively assess claims, including reviewing literature, administering psychological tests, and cross-referencing third-party information to identify consistencies or inconsistencies regarding alleged sexual abuse and grooming.
DOJ-OGR-00014907.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 01/15/25) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Rocchio. The witness defines 'grooming the environment' as a tactic where sexual offenders manipulate a child's parents or community institutions (citing the Boy Scouts as an example) to gain trust, respectability, and access to victims. The testimony outlines the psychological strategies used to disarm guardians and normalize the offender's presence.
DOJ-OGR-00014901.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct examination of a witness identified as Rocchio by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The witness describes their professional responsibilities as the president-elect of the Division of Trauma Psychology within the American Psychological Association.
DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.
DOJ-OGR-00014877.jpg
This document is the title page of a court transcript for a hearing held on November 10, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-cr-330) in the Southern District of New York. It lists Judge Alison J. Nathan as presiding and details the legal appearances for both the prosecution (U.S. Attorney's Office) and the defense (Haddon Morgan and Foreman).
DOJ-OGR-00014876.jpg
This document is the final page (26) of a United States Court of Appeals ruling filed on January 23, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific arguments on appeal, including the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in Florida prevented her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014860.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 2, 2024. It argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was limited solely to the Southern District of Florida and does not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites the 'Annabi' precedent to support the conclusion that the agreement does not bind other districts.
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-00014853.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal opinion (likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her 2022 conviction. It lists the legal counsel for both the government (Appellee) and Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant). The text, authored by Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes, summarizes Maxwell's conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy related to minors, as well as her sentencing of concurrent prison terms.
DOJ-OGR-00014852.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction for conspiracy, transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking. Maxwell's appeal raised five issues, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement barred her prosecution and other procedural matters. The court found no errors in the District Court's handling of the case and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00014851.jpg
This document is the cover page for a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding case number 22-1426-cr, United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The case was argued on March 12, 2024, and decided on September 17, 2024, by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier. The appeal originates from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014850.jpg
This legal document is a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed and issued on December 2, 2024. The court, after hearing the appeal, affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014834.jpg
This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00014832.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330). In this statement, Maxwell addresses the court, acknowledging the suffering of the victims and admitting her conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein. She attempts to distance herself by characterizing Epstein as a manipulative man who fooled everyone, while stating that meeting him was the greatest regret of her life.
DOJ-OGR-00014829.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The defense attorney argues for a lighter sentence based on 3553(a) factors, citing Maxwell's traumatic childhood marked by her brother's coma and death, and her 'narcissistic, brutish' father. The defense also attempts to mitigate her culpability by characterizing Jeffrey Epstein as 'controlling, demanding, [and] manipulative,' claiming he cast a deceptive shadow over her adulthood.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity