SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00019186.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment filed on July 2, 2020, against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines charges alleging that between 1994 and 1997, Maxwell transported a minor, identified as Minor Victim-1, from Florida to New York for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein. It also details COUNT THREE, a conspiracy charge, alleging Maxwell, Epstein, and others conspired to commit these acts.
DOJ-OGR-00019184.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, outlines statutory allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell. It accuses her, Jeffrey Epstein, and other unnamed individuals of engaging in a conspiracy from approximately 1994 to 1997 in the Southern District of New York and other locations. The object of the conspiracy was to entice and coerce individuals to travel for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity, in violation of federal law.
DOJ-OGR-00019175.jpg
This document is a sealed indictment filed on July 2, 2020, in the Southern District of New York, charging GHISLAINE MAXWELL with one count of conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts. The indictment alleges that MAXWELL played a significant role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein between at least 1994 and 1997, assisting Epstein in recruiting, grooming, and abusing victims as young as 14 years old, knowing they were underage, and causing them to travel.
DOJ-OGR-00019174.jpg
This document is an arrest warrant for Ghislaine Maxwell, issued on June 29, 2020, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The warrant, signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith, commands law enforcement to arrest Maxwell based on an indictment for multiple federal offenses, including conspiracy to entice minors, enticement of a minor, conspiracy to transport minors, transportation of a minor, and perjury. The case is identified as 20 CR 330.
DOJ-OGR-00019172.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the end of a day's proceedings where Ms. Comey (Government) and Mr. Everdell (Defense) confirm they have no further matters, leading the Court to adjourn the session until December 10, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
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-00019135.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues for the use of a summary witness to review exhibits without discussing investigative steps. The Judge ('The Court') rejects this characterization, stating that the proposed testimony does not fit Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and appears to be an improper 'mini closing argument' presented through a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00019125.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court transcript from the jury trial of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 9, 2021. The trial took place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Alison J. Nathan presiding. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00019119.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell, and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding trial scheduling, specifically when the government's case will conclude and when the defense will begin presenting their case. The prosecution requests Rule 26.2 disclosures at the conclusion of their case.
DOJ-OGR-00019094.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 depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sealed documents labeled LV4 and LV5. The attorney instructs the witness to use the pseudonym 'Kate' for a name appearing on document LV4 and asks the witness if they recall meeting that person on any flights.
DOJ-OGR-00017174.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the closing arguments (summation) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is instructing the jury on the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' emphasizing that the lack of evidence or missing witnesses should be considered when deciding if the government met its burden of proof. She explicitly states that if such doubt exists, it is the jury's duty to acquit Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017127.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording the defense summation by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. Menninger argues that a key witness's testimony is inconsistent, specifically highlighting that the witness admitted she does not recall Ghislaine Maxwell touching her, giving her massage instructions, or being present during specific sexual acts with Jeffrey Epstein, contradicting the government's narrative.
DOJ-OGR-00017117.jpg
This document is a page from the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney attempts to discredit a witness referred to as 'Jane' by highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding whether Maxwell was present during abuse committed by Jeffrey Epstein. The defense points to a February 2020 interview where Jane allegedly stated she was unsure if Maxwell was present, contrasting it with her trial testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017102.jpg
This document is page 81 of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, featuring the opening of the defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues that Maxwell is innocent and that the government's case relies on stories fabricated through 'erroneous memories, manipulation, and money' facilitated by personal injury lawyers. The defense contends the prosecution successfully proved Jeffrey Epstein was a manipulator but failed to connect his crimes to Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017101.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the proceedings immediately following a lunch break where the judge instructs the jury to return and introduces Ms. Menninger to begin the closing arguments for the defense of Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017100.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The page covers a judge denying a request for a mistrial regarding the admissibility of phone number evidence linked to an individual named 'Carolyn'. The court then breaks for a lunch recess, after which the defense notes technical difficulties with a courtroom screen.
DOJ-OGR-00017085.jpg
This document is a single page from a court transcript (summation by Ms. Moe) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that crimes took place within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York, citing trips to Manhattan by victims 'Jane' and 'Annie,' packages sent from Manhattan, and phone calls made by Maxwell to 'Carolyn' to schedule sexualized massages.
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-00017018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding procedural matters before the jury returns on a Monday at 8:30 AM. They discuss creating an agreed-upon list of admitted exhibits and redacting transcripts for potential jury review to avoid readbacks.
DOJ-OGR-00017013.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys Everdell and Rohrbach debating and agreeing upon the specific phrasing for legal charges with the Judge, specifically regarding 'sex trafficking' and 'conspiracy' counts involving individuals under the age of 18 and a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00017012.jpg
This document is page 86 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the specific wording of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six. They agree to replace the term 'minor' with 'individuals under the age of 17' and specify '(Jane only)' for certain counts.
DOJ-OGR-00017011.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of the verdict sheet and jury instructions. The parties agree to amend the language of Count One (conspiracy to entice) to refer to 'individuals' (plural) rather than 'an individual' under the age of 17.
DOJ-OGR-00017009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate over jury instructions and closing arguments, specifically regarding an 'empty chair' argument (likely referring to Epstein's absence) and the government's motivations for prosecution. The Judge (The Court) explicitly rules that there will be no argument allowed regarding the government's motivation.
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016985.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a legal argument regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'overt acts' and the testimony of a witness named 'Kate.' The defense (Everdell and Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) are present, and the Judge calls for a 10-minute recess following a request by Ms. Sternheim to consult with Mr. Everdell.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity