Defense
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional subject of information |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unidentified Speaker (LCSCMAXT)
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Representation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Government's witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecution/government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecutor (speaker)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jonathan Schanzer
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecution
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Kelso
|
Witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Defense expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Dietz
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecution
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Legal Argument regarding NPA applicability | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned resolution of pending redaction issues | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court rejected the defendant's request for additional instructions regarding Count Two. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Parties' extensive briefing on issues | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Production of discovery materials (>165,000 pages) by the Government. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense filed an agreement with the state court. | State court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Entry into the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) and declination. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Original bail hearing where defense argued the case was weak. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Renewed Bail Motion | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Provision of Jencks Act materials | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Stipulation regarding Defense Exhibit A-1 being received in evidence. | 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 | Legal proceeding | The Defense proposes a set of 14 conditions for Mr. Epstein's release on bail. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal dispute | The defense is arguing that the government must produce unredacted reports containing Brady mater... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense submitted a financial report to the Court detailing the defendant's assets as part of... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | A judge makes several rulings on objections from the government and defense regarding the admissi... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A judge overrules objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to paragraphs 79 and 81 of a doc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense advanced an argument which the Court rejected; Court referred jury to instructions. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The defense cross-examined Jane at length about her timeline and recollection of the trip to see ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Filing | The defense submitted a brief financial summary of Mr. Epstein's assets to the Court under seal. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Destruction or return of materials to the Government following the conclusion of the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Mr. Pagliuca), and the Judge regarding the physical inspection of evidence that occurred on November 1st. The Judge instructs the government not to mention specific evidence with uncertain admissibility in their opening statement and transitions the proceedings to discuss the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing filed on December 8, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceeding, counsel for the government, Ms. Comey, informs the court they are working to identify a defense witness as the case approaches trial. After the court adjourns the hearing until the 23rd, an unidentified speaker raises a lingering issue regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process related to a specific employer, which is to be discussed at sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00008255.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 8, 2021) discussing pre-trial motions in limine. The Court discusses the schedule for ruling on the Government's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert witnesses Drs. Loftus and Dietz (likely Elizabeth Loftus and Park Dietz). The text also mentions disputes regarding Government Exhibit 52 and the introduction of co-conspirator statements, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 23.
DOJ-OGR-00008247.jpg
This document, a court transcript filed on December 8, 2021, details a discussion about jury selection in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The speaker, a court official, outlines the process of reviewing prospective juror lists, noting the government's and defense's differing views on excusing jurors. The document also mentions a communication from the defense requesting to modify its previous juror strikes.
DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 6, 2021. It details a judicial rejection of defense arguments that a witness named 'Jane' waived attorney-client privilege by cooperating with the government. The court rules that essential information regarding credibility does not automatically void privilege, citing Rule 403 and previous transcripts.
DOJ-OGR-00008236.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on December 5, 2021. The order addresses a motion from the Government concerning the testimony of 'Witness-3' and compels both the Government and the Defense to submit letters to the court on the same day with specific deadlines. The order also reminds the parties to be mindful of sealing requirements under Rule 412.
DOJ-OGR-00008235.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 526) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 3, 2021. It serves as the signature page for the prosecution, submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach of the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00001898.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The proceedings involve Judge Nathan setting a trial date for July 12, 2021, and establishing deadlines for pretrial motions. Prosecutor Ms. Moe requests to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act to facilitate discovery review, to which the defense (represented by Mr. Cohen) does not object regarding scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00001830.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on November 6, 2020, likely in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues regarding discovery deadlines, agreeing to a laptop for the defendant to review evidence at the MDC but refusing early disclosure of witness lists (Giglio/Jencks material) seven months before trial. The text details upcoming discovery productions, specifically mentioning thousands of images/videos from Epstein's electronic devices, portions of seized iPads and an iPhone, and documents from the FBI's Florida files.
DOJ-OGR-00001810.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated October 23, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. The text details significant ongoing technical failures at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) regarding Maxwell's ability to access discovery materials on provided hard drives. Despite multiple letters and conference calls between August and October 2020, the Government and MDC IT staff failed to provide a functional computer or readable files, severely impairing Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001714.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 10, 2020. The defense argues that the government is delaying the identification of 'Victims 1-3' and providing discovery too slowly, which impairs their ability to investigate allegations spanning 25 years across multiple locations (NY, FL, NM, UK). The text details a timeline of discovery disputes following Maxwell's July 2020 arrest, noting that a 13,000-page initial production failed to clearly identify the accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00001383.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell against the Government's handling of her abuse allegations. The defense claims the Government's conclusion that the abuse was 'unfounded' is a 'self-serving proclamation' based on a Bureau of Prisons video review that neither the prosecutors, court, nor defense have seen. The document demands the video be produced for review and accuses the Government of hypocrisy and a desire to humiliate Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00001092.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding the denial of bail for Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that she is a significant flight risk due to her foreign connections and ability to evade security. The judge dismisses the defense's comparisons to other high-profile cases (Esposito, Dreier, Madoff) as unpersuasive due to factual differences, and notes the defense's argument regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00000886.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing legal filings and orders from late July 2020. It includes entries regarding motions for a protective order, responses from both the defense and prosecution, and a Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan resolving disputes over the protective order's language concerning victim identification and the use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000883.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket containing orders and notices related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry, remote proceeding logistics, victim notification rights, and Speedy Trial Act exclusions. It also lists a memo endorsement scheduling briefing deadlines and notices of attorney appearances for Maxwell's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00000814.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, denying bail or highlighting flight risks for Jeffrey Epstein. The Court notes Epstein's vast wealth (earning over $10 million/year), his international residences (France, USVI), and the lack of clarity regarding his total assets. The judge dismisses the defense's offer of a $100 million bond and rejects the proposal of paid 'trustees' to monitor Epstein due to the conflict of interest inherent in their salary.
DOJ-OGR-00000504.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, dated July 18, 2019. It states that the Government's motion for remand (detention) is granted, and the Defense's motion for pretrial release is denied. The order was signed by U.S.D.J. Richard M. Berman.
DOJ-OGR-00000501.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, critiques Mr. Epstein's proposed bail package, arguing that his home confinement plan involves excessive judicial oversight and raises practical concerns about private security. It also dismisses the defense's offer of an anticipatory extradition waiver as an 'empty gesture,' citing the Department of Justice's view that such waivers are not binding and the risk of the defendant fleeing to a non-extradition jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00000496.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, details arguments concerning the Defendant, Mr. Epstein's, foreign passports and the associated flight risk. The Defense claims Epstein acquired an Austrian passport in the 1980s from a friend for personal protection during Middle East travel and never used it for international entries. Conversely, the Government argues that the passport, potentially obtained under an alias, contains stamps indicating travel to France, Spain, the UK, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, suggesting a capacity for false identities and a serious flight risk. The document also notes Epstein's substantial cash assets of over $56 million as of June 30, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000401.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 16, 2019. The text details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorneys (Weingarten and Weinberg), and the prosecutor (Rossmiller) regarding the scheduling of a bail application hearing, moving it from Thursday to the following Monday at 10:00 AM. The prosecutor, Mr. Rossmiller, requests a moment to confer with the defense and subsequently states that the government will rely on its initial submission.
DOJ-OGR-00030367.jpg
This is a 'Plea in the Circuit Court' form from the State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein, case number 06-CF-001935 A MB. The document outlines the defendant's waiver of various rights (such as the right to a jury trial, confrontation of witnesses, and appeal) in exchange for a plea, signed by Epstein and his attorney on June 30, 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018527.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises an objection regarding the admissibility of exhibits 919 and 920 (photographs of schoolgirl outfits) intended to be introduced by the next witness, Kelly Maguire. Everdell argues that although 'Witness 3' (Kate) described wearing such outfits, she did not identify these specific photos during her testimony, lacking the proper legal foundation required for admission, similar to a previous situation with a witness named Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00016876.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) regarding witness testimony. Ms. Menninger explains why the defense did not seek anonymity for a witness, while Ms. Moe argues they had other options. The Court notes that the defense has been aware since October of another individual, Kelly, who was implicated by a witness named Jane in "sexualized massages" and subsequently noticed as a defense witness.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity