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 | Discussion of Holiday Schedule | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Counsel Meeting | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | End of court day during jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court testimony (Direct and Cross-examination) of Mr. Berke. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon session of sentencing hearing begins. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury deliberations and verdict validity (likely the Parse case being cite... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Granting of Use Immunity to Juror 50 | Federal Court (Southern Dis... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sidebar conference to record Juror 50's name under seal | Courtroom Sidebar | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding jury instructions and notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of defendant's motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3 | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | In camera review | Chambers | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed Hearing regarding Juror 50 | Courtroom (SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail Proceeding where defense argues against the weight of evidence and government tactics. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court denial of NCB's motion to dismiss | Federal Court (USA) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Hearing/Sidebar | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Authorization of limited jurisdictional discovery regarding PIF | Federal Court (USA) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's Sentencing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of Exhibit AF9 (Cowboy boots). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Sidebar/Discussion without Jury | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Video arraignment and bail hearing | Court (Video) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Initial conference in this matter | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Government rested its case early. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn regarding credibility, mental health, and child custody hist... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009256.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on whether Conrad intentionally lied by omitting the fact he was a lawyer in order to be selected for a jury. Conrad admits to omitting the "pertinent fact" and the questioning explores his motivations, his state of mind during deliberations, and his interactions with U.S. Marshals who later served him a subpoena related to the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009222.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Nicole Simmons certifies that on February 9, 2022, she electronically filed 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial' and served it to the government counsel (Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz) at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009222.
DOJ-OGR-00009199.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a juror (Juror No. 50) in Ms. Maxwell's trial failed to disclose his own history as a victim of child abuse during jury selection. The filing asserts that this lack of candor was prejudicial to the defendant, as the defense would have immediately challenged the juror for cause had the truth been known. The document highlights that the Court had denied the defense's requests for more thorough questioning but had assured them it would identify dishonest jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to seal Juror 50's motion to intervene, asserting it is a judicial document that should be public. It also defends the Government's previous decision to publicly file a letter regarding Juror 50's public statements, noting that defense counsel failed to respond to attempts to confer prior to that filing.
DOJ-OGR-00009165.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The Government argues that 'Juror 50' should be allowed to review his jury questionnaire before any potential hearing to consult with counsel regarding his Fifth Amendment rights. The text notes that Juror 50 does not recall answering questions about sexual assault and discusses procedural arguments regarding subpoenas and the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses a motion by Juror 50 to obtain his own jury questionnaire and voir dire testimony transcript. The defendant opposes the request, framing it as a 'discovery request' that would prejudice an 'investigation' into the juror's conduct. The Government argues that Juror 50 is not a defendant seeking discovery and that the privacy concerns for sealing such documents do not apply to the juror himself.
DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
This page is from a Government filing (Document 615) dated February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against the defendant's request to subpoena 'Juror 50's' social media records, citing the Stored Communications Act and privacy concerns. It also discusses a previous motion filed by Juror 50's counsel on January 10, 2022, seeking to intervene to protect the juror's rights against self-incrimination.
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on Feb 24, 2022. It discusses the defendant's argument that Juror 50 displayed implied bias by allegedly lying, rejecting comparisons to the 'Daugerdas' case and the dismissal of Juror 55. The court concludes that the defendant failed to establish implied bias, with significant portions of the text regarding Juror 55 redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing for the credibility of Juror 50 against a defendant's challenge. The filing contends that any inconsistencies in the juror's questionnaire answers should be assessed in a formal hearing, not based on public statements, and cites legal precedents suggesting jurors can make honest mistakes. It further argues that the juror's disclosure of having read about the defendant's connection to Epstein and the illogical nature of deliberately lying only to immediately risk exposure suggest the juror did not intentionally mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
This legal document discusses the standard for granting a new trial due to a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire. It cites the Second Circuit's application of the two-part test from the Supreme Court case *McDonough*, which requires showing both juror dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have provided grounds for a challenge for cause. The document refutes a defendant's argument by clarifying that the Second Circuit has rejected alternative interpretations and that the defendant's reliance on concurring opinions in *McDonough* is incorrect because a clear majority opinion exists.
DOJ-OGR-00009127.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It details the jury selection process (voir dire) occurring in November 2021, specifically focusing on 'Juror 50.' The text highlights Juror 50's questionnaire responses, where he disclosed reading on CNN that the defendant was Epstein's girlfriend but affirmed his ability to remain fair, impartial, and decide the case based solely on evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00009125.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. It describes the conclusion of the voir dire process on November 18, 2021, where the Court questioned prospective jurors about their impartiality and subsequently qualified 58 jurors. The majority of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00009121.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a court filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The filing appears to be the Government's response arguing against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing issues surrounding 'Juror 50' regarding their questionnaire, voir dire, and post-verdict public statements. The outline proposes a limited hearing to question Juror 50 while arguing that the defense has not met the legal standards (McDonough test) to warrant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009076.jpg
This document is page 9 of a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they have no feelings or opinions about evidence from law enforcement searches or the use of expert witnesses that would affect their impartiality. The juror also affirms their willingness and ability to follow the court's instruction to avoid all media and any discussion of the case outside the courtroom until their jury service is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00009070.jpg
This document is a summary of a criminal case for prospective jurors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which was set to begin on November 29, 2021. It outlines the six counts against Maxwell, alleging she conspired with and aided Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity and sex trafficking. The document reminds jurors that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' lacks legal standing and has no right to intervene in a criminal case. The filing references several legal precedents, including Cunningham v. Shoop and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, to discuss juror bias and testimony, ultimately concluding that established precedent, such as in United States v. Stoerr, prevents a non-party from having a judicially recognized interest in a defendant's prosecution. The document also notes that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer a questionnaire, having later publicly admitted to being a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009058.jpg
This document is page 50 (PDF page 57) of a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a hearing to question Juror No. 50 regarding potential bias, alleging that at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire which violated Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights. The filing argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as it pertains to juror qualifications rather than the content of deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror 50, failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection. This omission prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge, and the juror later revealed his bias to the media by stating his memory was 'like a video' and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility. The argument cites numerous New Jersey court precedents where judgments were invalidated for similar juror inaccuracies.
DOJ-OGR-00009052.jpg
This document is page 51 (internal page 44) of a legal filing (Document 613) dated February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by failing to disclose that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and crime (referencing Questions 48 and 25). The text asserts that this nondisclosure prevented the defense from probing his ability to be impartial regarding Dr. Loftus's testimony and Maxwell's defense strategy concerning false memories.
DOJ-OGR-00009050.jpg
This legal document argues that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, engaged in a post-trial publicity tour, including a documentary interview, potentially for financial gain. The government's public filing of a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's media appearances is presented as a strategic move to prevent further scrutiny of the juror's conduct, which could have provided grounds for a new trial for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009049.jpg
This document is page 48 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues that 'Juror No. 50' intentionally provided false answers on a jury selection questionnaire. It claims this intent is evidenced by the juror's post-verdict media appearances where he promoted himself and his status as a victim.
DOJ-OGR-00009048.jpg
This legal document argues that 'Juror No. 50' is not credible. It cites a nonsensical explanation the juror gave to a Daily Mail reporter for a false answer on a questionnaire. The document further refutes the juror's claim that he 'flew through' the questionnaire by highlighting the Court's explicit instructions for careful and truthful completion.
DOJ-OGR-00009022.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details post-trial media interviews given by Juror No. 50 to Reuters and the Daily Mail. The text highlights that Juror No. 50 disclosed his own history of sexual abuse to the jury to help sway members who doubted the credibility of accusers Jane and Carolyn. Additionally, it notes that in a Daily Mail video (Exhibit 3), the juror explicitly denied being asked about his sexual abuse history in the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009019.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, alleges juror misconduct in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It claims that Juror No. 50 and a second deliberating juror were untruthful on their jury questionnaires by denying they had ever been victims of sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. The document sets up a section to discuss Juror No. 50's admissions of untruthfulness to the Court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity