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-00020823.jpg
This is a court order dated August 13, 2021, from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order denies a motion from an individual named Maxwell seeking relief related to the S2 indictment, referencing a prior Opinion & Order from April 16, 2021 as part of the basis for the decision.
DOJ-OGR-00020822.jpg
This document is a page from a court order in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (part of appeal record Case 22-1426). The Judge denies Maxwell's motion to compel the immediate disclosure of prior statements by 'Minor Victim-4' in which the victim allegedly did not mention Maxwell. The Court rules that the Government's deadline of October 11, 2021, for Jencks Act and Giglio material is sufficient and that the Government understands its Brady obligations regarding exculpatory evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020821.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling denying motions filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The court denies her motion for a bill of particulars, which sought more specific dates for alleged sex trafficking crimes, ruling that the indictment's four-year timeframe (2001-2004) is sufficient. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to compel immediate disclosure of a Minor Victim's prior statements, finding the current disclosure schedule adequate.
DOJ-OGR-00020819.jpg
This page is part of a legal opinion (page 10 of the specific order, page 201 of the appellate appendix) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five of the S2 indictment (sex trafficking conspiracy) and rejects her argument that the Government's delay in bringing charges violated due process. The Court rules that Maxwell failed to show actual prejudice resulting from the delay.
DOJ-OGR-00020817.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023, denying a motion filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court reaffirms its prior April 16, 2021 ruling, concluding that the statutes of limitations for sex trafficking of a minor (§ 3283 and § 3299) apply retroactively to her alleged conduct. The Court holds that this allows the prosecution to proceed on counts related to offenses committed before the statutes were enacted.
DOJ-OGR-00020816.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that charges of Sex Trafficking Conspiracy and Sex Trafficking are time-barred under the general five-year statute of limitations. The document outlines the history of relevant legislation, including the PROTECT Act of 2003 and 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which extended or eliminated limitations for such crimes. Maxwell contends these extensions do not apply to her specific charges, renewing a previously argued position, because the alleged conduct occurred between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
This document contains a summary of court rulings denying several motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, including motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy, untimeliness, multiplicity, and pre-indictment delay. It also addresses a motion to compel statements from 'Minor-Victim 4' and reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
This page is from a court order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses discovery disputes, specifically ruling that the Government's agreement to produce 'Giglio' and 'Jencks Act' materials six weeks prior to trial is sufficient for Maxwell to prepare, noting the Court lacks authority to force earlier disclosure of Jencks material. The Court also denies Maxwell's request for a pretrial hearing regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, opting instead for conditional admission at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020788.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling on requests made by a party named Maxwell for the immediate disclosure of specific materials from the Government. The requested items include witness interviews, FBI reports, diary pages, and subpoenas. The Court denies Maxwell's requests, reasoning that the Government has affirmed its compliance with its disclosure obligations (under Brady and Giglio), some materials are protected by the Jencks Act, some are not in the Government's possession, and other requests are overly broad.
DOJ-OGR-00020784.jpg
This page is from a legal ruling in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal complexities of trying Maxwell for both perjury and Mann Act charges simultaneously, specifically focusing on the potential conflict of interest and prejudice if her civil attorneys are called as witnesses. The Court weighs the burden of separate trials against the lack of overlap in evidence between the perjury and sex trafficking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020782.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021. The court concludes that perjury charges against the defendant, Maxwell, are legally tenable and can be presented to a jury. However, the court rules that these perjury charges must be severed and tried separately from the Mann Act counts to avoid undue prejudice to the defendant, citing potential issues with admitting evidence of other acts and the risk of disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00020778.jpg
This legal document is a court filing addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss charges from an indictment, specifically the Mann Act counts, arguing they lack specificity. The Court denies the motion, concluding that the S1 superseding indictment is sufficiently clear under established legal precedent, which only requires tracking the statutory language and providing the time and place in approximate terms. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is too vague regarding time periods, conduct described, and the identification of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00020775.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes whether a statute can be retroactively applied to prosecute the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that applying the PROTECT Act does not have impermissible retroactive effects because it did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights, as the original statute of limitations had not expired when the Act was passed. The document also dismisses Maxwell's fairness argument as a policy disagreement with Congress and affirms that the government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process, citing the statute of limitations as the primary safeguard against stale charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020769.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in a criminal case against an individual named Maxwell. The court analyzes and ultimately rejects Maxwell's argument that a 'categorical approach' should be used to interpret the statutes related to the charges. The court relies on precedent from the Second and Third Circuits, particularly the reasoning in *Weingarten v. United States*, to conclude that the categorical approach is not applicable in this context.
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text addresses the timeliness of the indictment, specifically analyzing the Statute of Limitations under the Mann Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the charges are time-barred, concluding that the extended limitations period for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors applies to her case.
DOJ-OGR-00020767.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021, denying a request by the defendant, Maxwell, for an evidentiary hearing. The Court rules that a hearing is unnecessary because the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in question is clear and in writing, unlike cases involving ambiguous oral agreements. The Court also orders the Government to confirm within one week its disclosure of any evidence that might support Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00020763.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Annabi, the filing asserts that such agreements are limited to the district in which they are made unless they explicitly state a broader scope. The document refutes an opposing argument from an individual named Maxwell, stating the NPA lacks the necessary language to apply to other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00020761.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court summarizes its rulings, denying Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges based on Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement, untimeliness, vagueness, and grand jury venue issues. However, the Court grants Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts, ruling they will be tried separately from the sex trafficking/Mann Act charges.
DOJ-OGR-00020696.jpg
This document is a court docket from November 22, 2021, detailing numerous filings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The entries include an order regarding the testimony of 'Witness-3', an endorsement about providing a video monitor, and a series of letters and motions from both the prosecution (USA) and the defense. These filings address various pre-trial matters such as redactions, subpoenas, and the admissibility of evidence like birth certificates and testimony from 'Accuser-3'.
DOJ-OGR-00020675.jpg
This document is a court docket report from the Southern District of New York for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings from October 15 to October 18, 2021. The entries primarily concern pre-trial procedural matters, including a dispute over the timely delivery of legal mail to Maxwell at the MDC, and judicial orders setting deadlines for motions related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. The docket reflects communications between the prosecution (USA), the defense (Maxwell's counsel), and the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00020661.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the SDNY covering late April and early May 2021 regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details legal skirmishes over Maxwell's detention conditions at the MDC Brooklyn, specifically regarding the seizure of her legal materials by prison staff on April 24, 2021, and allegations of sleep deprivation caused by flashlight surveillance every 15 minutes. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued orders requiring the MDC and the Government to justify these actions and ensure the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.
DOJ-OGR-00020654.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from the Southern District of New York regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the court's rulings on numerous pretrial motions filed by Maxwell, denying most of them, including motions to dismiss based on Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and statute of limitations. The court did, however, grant Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial and ordered both parties to negotiate and submit schedules for remaining pretrial matters by April 21, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00020613.jpg
This legal document, dated February 14, 2023, is a motion requesting permission from the Court to file an oversized appellate brief of up to 35,000 words, an increase from a previously approved 20,000 words. The filer argues the extra length is necessary to adequately address five complex legal issues, including statute of limitations and juror misconduct. The document confirms that the opposing counsel, Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York, have been notified of this request via email.
DOJ-OGR-00020609.jpg
This document is the final signature page (labeled page 4 of 4) of a legal motion filed on January 16, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It features a request for the Court to grant the Appellant's motion in its entirety, submitted by attorney John M. Leventhal of the law firm Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, PC, representing the Defendant-Appellant. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00020609) at the bottom right.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity