SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00010371.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing from April 29, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text outlines applicable law regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicity' in indictments and how to determine if conspiracy charges involve the same agreement. It cites various legal precedents including Brown v. Ohio, United States v. Jones, and a previous ruling in the Maxwell case itself.
DOJ-OGR-00010367.jpg
This legal document is an Opinion & Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated April 29, 2022, concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document, authored by Judge Alison J. Nathan, provides background on Maxwell's 2020 indictment for sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein, the subsequent thirteen-day trial, and the jury's guilty verdict on five of six counts. It introduces the defendant's post-trial motions, which argue for vacating some or all of her convictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010366.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on April 26, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The order sets a new, advanced schedule for sentencing submissions from both the prosecution and defense, following a letter from the Government. The schedule outlines several deadlines in May and June 2022, culminating in the final sentencing hearing on June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010365.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal document filed on April 25, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document, submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and his assistants for the Southern District of New York, states that the Probation Office has no objection to advancing a deadline to June 14, 2022, provided that the parties submit comments on the draft Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) by June 1, 2022. Defense Counsel was copied on the filing.
DOJ-OGR-00010364.jpg
This is a letter dated April 25, 2022, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government requests that the court order the Probation Office to complete its revised Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) earlier than the currently scheduled date of June 21, 2022. The letter argues that the current schedule, which has the revised PSR due on the same day as the defendant's sentencing submission, does not allow the parties sufficient time to incorporate the report's findings into their own submissions before the June 28 sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
This document is page 36 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically concerning the juror's history of sexual abuse and 'healing process.' The Court cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent inquiry into the juror's mental processes during deliberations and concludes that the juror's past trauma did not interfere with his ability to be fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00010336.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text analyzes a motion regarding juror misconduct, specifically discussing the 'McDonough' test. The Court concludes that the juror's false answers during voir dire were not deliberate and that the second prong of the legal test was not satisfied. It also defines legal standards for actual, implied, and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010335.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court filing (Document 653) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 1, 2022. It outlines the legal standards for granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, specifically addressing juror nondisclosure during voir dire. The text cites the 'McDonough' standard, stating that a defendant must prove a juror failed to answer a material question honestly and that a correct answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010332.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on March 8, 2022, to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false statements during jury selection. This action followed a motion for a new trial by the Defendant, which was based on statements made by the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text denies the defendant's Rule 33 motion for a new trial and outlines the background of the jury selection process, detailing how it was conducted under COVID-19 protocols using questionnaires and voir dire to screen for bias in a high-profile case. It references specific docket entries (366, 367, 404, 427, 459) and transcript dates.
DOJ-OGR-00010324.jpg
This document is the first page of an Opinion & Order filed on April 1, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the allegation that 'Juror 50' provided inaccurate information regarding a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standards for impartial juries and notes that an uncommon post-trial hearing was conducted to investigate the juror's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00010323.jpg
This is the second page of a legal filing (Document 652) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 1, 2022. The document is an opposition by the US Government to a motion for a stay, arguing it is based only on the defendant's conjecture. It is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00010320.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal document filed on April 1, 2022, in the Southern District of New York. The filing, submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and his assistants, states that the Government has conferred with defense counsel, and that defense counsel consents to an unspecified request. A copy was sent to the defense counsel via the court's electronic filing system.
DOJ-OGR-00010319.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated April 1, 2022, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The government requests an extension, specifically an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, until April 22, 2022, for Counts Seven and Eight in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. This extension is sought to allow parties to continue researching and briefing pending post-trial motions, which the government argues is in the interests of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00010291.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Filed on March 15, 2022, it is the government's memorandum opposing the defendant's motion for a new trial. The prosecution team is headed by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.
DOJ-OGR-00010266.jpg
This legal document is a "Notice of Filing of Official Transcript" filed on March 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 20 CR 330). It announces that the official transcript for a conference held on March 8, 2022, has been filed by the court reporter. The notice informs the parties that they have seven days to file a notice of intent to request redactions of personal data before the transcript is made publicly available.
DOJ-OGR-00010260.jpg
This document is page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It details an inquiry by the Court into a witness or potential juror's interactions with reporters regarding their personal history of sexual abuse. Following the questioning, a sidebar conference occurs where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests the Judge ask the individual about their knowledge of the case summary, noting the individual admitted to knowing the case was about sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010257.jpg
This document is page 42 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a questioning session, likely of a juror (Juror 50), regarding their decision to give press interviews about their status as a sexual abuse victim. The witness explains they did not believe their family or friends would find out because they didn't use their full name and assumed the story wouldn't be major news.
DOJ-OGR-00010256.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330. It features a colloquy between a judge ('your Honor') and a witness who served as a juror. The questioning focuses on whether the juror answered previous questions accurately, followed instructions, or was distracted by personal issues (specifically thoughts about an 'ex') during the trial or while filling out a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010249.jpg
This document is page 34 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a male subject (likely a juror) gave inconsistent statements regarding his understanding of the publicity consequences of an interview with a journalist named Lucia, specifically in relation to answers provided on a jury questionnaire. Everdell highlights the contradiction of the subject claiming he did not expect to become known worldwide as a victim of sexual abuse while simultaneously speaking to journalists.
DOJ-OGR-00010248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the case USA v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a discussion between the Judge and defense attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a juror who had posted on social media and was a victim of sexual abuse himself. The defense argues that the juror's history and desire to be on an 'interesting' jury involving sexual abuse victims impact his ability to be impartial, and they discuss whether he followed court instructions during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010246.jpg
This is page 31 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. Defense attorneys Sternheim and Everdell are arguing with the Judge regarding the scope of questioning for a juror who allegedly failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense is pushing to question the juror about his public statements to reporters and a specific post directed to victim Annie Farmer, while the Judge refuses to allow questions about internal jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010242.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding whether their personal history of sexual abuse affected their ability to be fair and impartial during the trial. Following the questioning, the Court initiates a sidebar conference where attorney Ms. Moe proposes a follow-up question.
DOJ-OGR-00010241.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, involving post-trial questioning of a juror regarding potential bias. The judge asks the juror if their personal experience with prior sexual abuse affected their ability to be impartial, assess witness credibility, or if they held bias against Ms. Maxwell or in favor of the government. The juror consistently denies any bias or inability to judge the evidence solely on its merits.
DOJ-OGR-00010238.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text captures testimony from a witness (likely a juror, based on context regarding a questionnaire) defending themselves against potential criminal charges for failing to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The witness argues it was an 'honest mistake' and claims they did not realize their family or friends would learn about the abuse through their subsequent interview or the case proceedings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity