The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
25 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
26 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Legal representative |
18
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Williams
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
228 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. WEINGARTEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
61 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Members of the jury
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
116 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
155 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
136 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's Sentencing Proceeding | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Detention Hearing Decision | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment based on fabricated stories and perjurious conspiracy by ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Payment of criminal monetary penalties within 30 (or 60) days after release from imprisonment, ba... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing discussing attorney misconduct and potential retrial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar or argument regarding courtroom logistics and COVID protocols. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between Court and Counsel at 8:45 AM. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial sessions planned for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday before Christmas and New Year's. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | 10-minute break (Recess) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | 9 a.m. conference regarding the jury charge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Charging Conference (Trial Tr. at 2758–61) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 questioning during trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the denial of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'prejudicial variance' related to Count Three (conspiracy to transport) and Count Four. The Court rules that testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding abuse in New Mexico did not improperly amend the charges, noting that evidence also involved victims 'Annie' and 'Carolyn'.
DOJ-OGR-00021017.jpg
This legal document page details the court's reasoning for rejecting the Defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues that it correctly instructed the jury on the sole predicate offense under New York Penal Law, avoiding confusion that the Defendant's proposals regarding other jurisdictions' laws and specific witness testimonies (from Kate, Annie, and Jane) would have created. The document concludes that the Defendant's claim of potential jury error, specifically regarding conduct in New Mexico versus New York, is speculative and implausible.
DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg
This document is a page from a legal ruling (likely denying a new trial) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a jury note asking for clarification on 'Count Four' regarding whether aiding a victim's ('Jane') return flight constitutes guilt if the defendant did not aid the initial flight to New Mexico for sexual activity. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the jury instruction was unclear or that it constructively amended the indictment, noting that Jane testified about numerous flights on both Epstein's private plane and commercial airlines.
DOJ-OGR-00021010.jpg
This document is a legal filing (likely an appellate brief response) from April 2022 summarizing testimony from a victim identified as 'Jane' regarding the criminal conduct of Ghislaine Maxwell ('the Defendant') and Jeffrey Epstein. It details how Jane met the pair at a summer camp, was groomed, and transported via private and commercial flights to properties in Florida, New York, and New Mexico for sexual activity starting when she was 14. The text highlights Maxwell's role in arranging travel and participating in the scheme to transport underage girls across state lines for illegal sexual acts.
DOJ-OGR-00021009.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses limiting instructions given to a jury. The instructions clarified that the testimony of two witnesses, Kate and Annie, could not be the sole basis for conviction on certain counts because their experiences either involved someone not legally a victim under the specific charges (Kate) or occurred in a different jurisdiction (Annie in New Mexico). The court aimed to focus the jury's attention on the specific alleged crime: the transport of a minor, Jane, to New York for sexual activity illegal under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021008.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, discusses the jury instructions given in a criminal trial. It details how the Court instructed the jury that the Defendant's charges under the Mann Act were predicated on specific violations of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with a person under seventeen. The document confirms the Court clarified this point and specified overt acts from the indictment, including one from 1996, to guide the jury's deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00021004.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that denies a defendant's motions for acquittal and to vacate convictions related to the Mann Act. The court found sufficient evidence from witness testimonies (including from 'Carolyn', 'Annie', and 'Kate') to conclude that the defendant conspired with Epstein to transport minors to locations like New York, New Mexico, and the Caribbean for illegal sexual activity. The defendant's actions, such as paying for sexualized massages and inviting girls to travel, were considered part of this conspiracy, justifying the jury's conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00021003.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 29, 2022, outlines the court's conclusion that trial evidence supported a guilty verdict for the Defendant on Count Three, conspiracy to transport minors for illegal sexual activity. The document summarizes testimony from victims 'Jane' and 'Annie,' who described being groomed and taken on trips to New York and New Mexico by the Defendant and co-conspirator Epstein. The court found this and other evidence sufficient to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00021001.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to find the Defendant guilty on counts of transporting a minor and sex trafficking. The conclusion is based on the testimony of a victim, "Jane," who stated the Defendant facilitated her travel with Jeffrey Epstein from Palm Beach to New York, assisted her in boarding flights, and was present during Epstein's sexual abuse of her when she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00021000.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court is addressing a post-trial Rule 29 motion for acquittal filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court denies the motion for the remaining counts (Three, Four, and Six), after noting the jury acquitted on Count Two and the Court deemed Counts One and Five multiplicitous. The document specifically begins to analyze Count Four, which involves the transportation of a minor named Jane for sexual activity in violation of New York law between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, which was made at the close of the Government's case. The text outlines the legal standard for such a motion, citing numerous precedents that require the court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00020996.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a grooming tactic to gain victims' trust and facilitate sexual abuse. It cites testimony from a victim named 'Jane' about receiving money and payments for lessons, and mentions promises made to another victim, 'Annie'. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the conspiracy, noting that sexual conduct occurred not only in New York and Florida but also in New Mexico and London, involving other victims like Carolyn and Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00020990.jpg
This legal document analyzes two counts from an indictment against an unnamed Defendant. Count Three alleges a conspiracy from 1994-2004 to transport minors across state lines for sexual activity, based on testimony from victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer. Count Five alleges a conspiracy from 2001-2004 for trafficking individuals for commercial sex acts, based on evidence related to Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The Defendant argues, and the Court appears to agree, that Count Five is a subset of Count Three.
DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg
This document is a court ruling from April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court rejects the Defendant's argument that 'Juror 50' was biased for failing to follow instructions during the jury questionnaire phase. The Court accepts Juror 50's testimony that while he was distracted (thinking about his ex) during the questionnaire, he was fully attentive and compliant during voir dire and the actual trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020978.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that addresses and rejects the Defendant's arguments for juror bias. The Defendant claims that Juror 50 was biased due to his personal history of sexual abuse, which she argues resonated with the victims' testimony and improperly shaped his views. The Court refutes these claims, stating that the juror's post-trial interviews do not prove pre-trial bias and that it is a foundational principle for jurors to rely on their life experiences to evaluate evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) claim that one of the jurors, Juror 50, was biased. The defendant cites other legal cases (Afshar, Burton) to support the claim, but the court distinguishes the facts and finds Juror 50 was not biased, noting his credible testimony about his past abuse. The court also dismisses the argument that Juror 50's post-trial interviews and social media activity are evidence of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00020974.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) challenge to the impartiality of a juror, Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines that his inadvertent nondisclosure about past sexual abuse does not constitute deliberate lying to be selected for the jury. The court rejects the defendant's argument that similarities between the juror's personal history and the case issues warrant a finding of implied bias, distinguishing this situation from other legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00020970.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis concluding that Juror 50 is neither impliedly nor inferably biased against the Defendant. The court reasons that the juror's personal experience of sexual abuse is insufficient to infer partiality and that, based on the voir dire of other jurors, it is unlikely the Defendant would have successfully challenged the juror for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00020969.jpg
This legal document, page 26 of a court filing, provides a detailed legal analysis of the concepts of "implied bias" and "inferred bias" in the context of juror partiality. It distinguishes between the two, defining implied bias as a conclusive presumption for extreme cases and inferred bias as a discretionary finding by the trial court based on a juror's responses. The document relies heavily on precedents from cases like McCoy, Greer, and Torres to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00020967.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a claim of 'actual bias' against Juror 50. The Court finds Juror 50's sworn testimony to be credible, concluding that his personal history of sexual abuse would not impede his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that the juror's assurances were 'self-serving', citing the juror's consistent and forthright demeanor during both a hearing and voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00020966.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court ruling (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing a motion regarding Juror 50's conduct. The Court concludes that Juror 50's failure to disclose sexual abuse history on his questionnaire was inadvertent rather than intentional deception. Furthermore, applying the 'McDonough' legal standard, the Court determines that even if the juror had answered accurately, he would not have been struck for cause, as evidenced by his credible responses during a post-trial hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00020961.jpg
This legal document details a court's analysis of whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, intentionally provided false answers on a jury questionnaire regarding his own history of sexual abuse. The Court finds Juror 50's explanation—that it was an inadvertent mistake he only realized during a post-trial interview with the Daily Mail—to be credible and more logical than the Defendant's claim of perjury. The court is not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments and appears to be ruling in favor of the juror's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
This legal document details post-verdict issues in a criminal case where the defendant was found guilty. A week after the verdict, the Government notified the Court that a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave press interviews claiming to be a victim of sexual abuse, a fact he had denied on his jury questionnaire. The Government requested a hearing on the matter, which the Defendant subsequently opposed in a letter to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00020916.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which was set to begin on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts in the indictment against Maxwell for crimes allegedly committed between 1994 and 2004. The charges include conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity