SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017342.jpg
This document is page 9 of 16 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page captures the very end of a proceeding session where a speaker dismisses someone or calls for a break, followed immediately by a formal recess notation. The majority of the page is blank, marked 'Continued on next page'.
DOJ-OGR-00017335.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe addresses the Court in the absence of the jury, first noting a safety caution regarding an open door to the jury room. She then argues against a defense letter filed earlier that morning, stating it repeats arguments regarding jury instructions that the Court had already rejected the previous day.
DOJ-OGR-00017334.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 28, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. It lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and details the legal appearances for both the prosecution (US Attorney's Office) and the defense (Haddon Morgan and Foreman, Cohen & Gresser). It also notes the presence of FBI and NYPD representatives in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00017308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the legal definition of the word 'entice' for jury instructions. The Judge cites specific case law (*Almonte*, *Dupigny*, and *Broxmeyer*) to define the term as 'to attract, induce, or lure using hope or desire.'
DOJ-OGR-00017305.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The trial took place on December 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, with the Honorable Alison J. Nathan presiding as District Judge. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00017304.jpg
This is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings are taking place without the jury present. The Court discusses upcoming masking rules due to COVID-19 concerns, wishes the counsel happy holidays, and adjourns the trial until December 27, 2021. Ms. Comey (Prosecution) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters to discuss.
DOJ-OGR-00017294.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. It details a sidebar or open court discussion during jury deliberations where the Judge addresses a question from the jury, confirms the schedule for dismissal at 5:00 PM, and arranges lunch for the following day. The Judge also notes a directive from the Chief Judge requiring masks to be worn in the jury room due to a COVID-19 variant.
DOJ-OGR-00017279.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 21, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It identifies the case number, the presiding judge (Hon. Alison J. Nathan), and lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution (United States of America) and the defense, as well as other individuals present from the FBI and NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00017269.jpg
This document is page 3082 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains the judge's charge to the jury, instructing them to reach a verdict based solely on evidence and the law, without being swayed by sympathy or consequences. The text also outlines the protocol for deliberations, emphasizing that every juror should be heard, no one should dominate the room, and jurors should be open to changing their views while maintaining honest convictions.
DOJ-OGR-00017266.jpg
This document is page 245 of a court transcript (Jury Charge) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains specific legal instructions from the judge to the jury regarding how to handle redacted evidence, the definition and weight of 'Stipulations' (Instruction No. 57), and the prohibition against the jury considering potential punishment during deliberations (Instruction No. 58).
DOJ-OGR-00017265.jpg
This document is page 244 of the jury charge in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 55, advising jurors that witness preparation by lawyers is standard procedure and not improper, and begins Instruction No. 56 regarding redacted documents submitted as evidence. The page emphasizes that jurors should not speculate why other persons are not on trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017255.jpg
This document is page 234 of the jury charge filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The page contains specific legal instructions to the jury, warning them not to infer guilt solely based on Maxwell's association with wrongdoers. It also introduces Instruction No. 44, guiding the jury on how to evaluate the credibility, honesty, and demeanor of witnesses using their common sense.
DOJ-OGR-00017250.jpg
This document is page 229 of a court transcript (Document 767) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge explaining the legal concept of 'conscious avoidance' in relation to conspiracy charges, clarifying that deliberate ignorance can imply knowledge but cannot substitute for intent to join a conspiracy. The page concludes by introducing Instruction No. 40 regarding Venue and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00017245.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, outlines allegations of overt acts in a conspiracy case. It describes how between 2001 and 2004, Epstein's employees sent gifts, including lingerie, to a woman named Carolyn and that Epstein, Maxwell, or employees called her to schedule massages for Epstein. The document concludes with a legal argument explaining that to convict Ms. Maxwell of conspiracy, the prosecution only needs to prove that any member of the conspiracy committed an overt act, not necessarily Maxwell herself.
DOJ-OGR-00017236.jpg
This document is page 215 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, containing Jury Instruction No. 34 regarding conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines the requirements for proving a conspiracy and details Count One, which charges Maxwell with conspiring between 1994 and 2004 to entice individuals under age 17 to travel for illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00017234.jpg
This document is page 213 of 257 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 33 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the legal elements of 'Conspiracy to violate federal law.' The text explains that the essence of conspiracy is the agreement itself, regardless of whether the ultimate crime was successfully committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017231.jpg
This document is page 210 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal standards for finding Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of 'aiding and abetting' in Counts Two, Four, and Six. The text defines the necessity of proving willful association with the crime while clarifying that mere presence or knowledge of the crime is insufficient for conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00017226.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) containing Jury Instructions No. 25 and 26. It defines the legal elements for Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18 (18 U.S.C. § 1591). The instructions specify that the government must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt and explicitly state that this count relates solely to an individual named Carolyn during the period of 2001 to 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00017210.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains Jury Instruction No. 5, explicitly instructing the jury to avoid improper considerations such as discrimination or bias (conscious or unconscious) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's identity or economic status when reaching a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00013993.jpg
This page contains a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of memory expert Dr. Loftus, who testifies about the reliability of memory in relation to trauma and post-event suggestion. Loftus explains that while core details of traumatic events may be remembered, they are still subject to distortion, and discusses the correlation between memory confidence and accuracy under pristine conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00013988.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of expert witness Loftus. The testimony focuses on the suggestiveness of psychotherapy, the potential for creating false memories regarding childhood trauma, and the psychological concept of 'labeling' in relation to memory distortion.
DOJ-OGR-00013985.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. The witness, identified as Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), is testifying on direct examination about the concepts of 'post-event information' and 'post-event suggestion' and how conversations, biased interrogations, and media exposure can contaminate human memory. She also mentions her professional experience consulting with the FBI and Secret Service regarding interviewing techniques.
DOJ-OGR-00013984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus). The testimony focuses on the science of memory, specifically the 'retention stage,' and argues that as time passes, witnesses become more susceptible to 'post-event suggestion' which can contaminate, alter, or distort their memories.
DOJ-OGR-00013982.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. It features the direct examination of an expert witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), who is explaining the scientific stages of memory: acquisition, retention, and retrieval. The witness describes how 'acts of retrieval,' such as conversations or police interviews, occur during the retention interval after an event.
DOJ-OGR-00013980.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of Professor Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, specifically discussing the 'acquisition stage' of memory. The transcript details a procedural moment where the defense requests permission to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard for demonstrative purposes, to which the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) has no objection.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity