The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Donaldson
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Williams
|
Professional subordinate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Defendant judicial oversight |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. JAFFE
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Madam Foreperson
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Gaffney
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mrs. Hesse
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
unidentified speaker
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Rodgers
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Cimberly Espinosa
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Boies
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein’s Representative
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00009015.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses the jury selection process for Ms. Maxwell's trial, specifically focusing on Juror No. 50. The defense argues that the Court's questioning of this juror, who had a history of abuse but answered 'no' to related questions, was insufficient to determine if he could be fair and impartial. The document suggests the Court failed to probe potential biases that could affect the evaluation of Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the pre-trial voir dire process concerning Juror No. 50. It outlines the defense counsel's unsuccessful motions to conduct their own voir dire and to have the Court ask jurors specific questions about being victims of crime. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's negative responses to questions about whether he had been a victim of sexual assault or would have difficulty assessing witness credibility, which are key points in a legal argument.
DOJ-OGR-00009012.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Document 613) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It details the legal arguments regarding the 'voir dire' process, specifically how the defense (Maxwell) and prosecution (Government) debated the wording of questions aimed at identifying potential jurors with a history of sexual assault or abuse. The text notes that the Court eventually settled on 'Question 48' to address this issue.
DOJ-OGR-00009010.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The basis for the argument is that Juror No. 50 provided a false answer on a jury questionnaire regarding their personal experience with sexual assault, which was a core issue in the case. This alleged dishonesty is claimed to have undermined the jury selection process (voir dire) and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009003.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct, focusing on "Juror No. 50," who allegedly was untruthful during jury selection and later gave interviews to media outlets like The Independent, Daily Mail, and Reuters. The document also notes that a second juror disclosed during deliberations that they had been a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00008990.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 609) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. It is the conclusion of a motion filed on behalf of 'Juror 50' requesting that the Court release his Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and the Defense. The filing argues that privacy concerns should not prevent Juror 50 from accessing his own documents, which are necessary to comply with a prior order from Judge Nathan regarding an inquiry into the juror's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that the Court possesses the authority to release the sealed Jury Questionnaire and voir dire testimony of Juror 50. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that such a release is permissible but is subject to a balancing test, weighing public access against juror privacy, security, and potential harassment. The document emphasizes that any limitations on access to these materials must be narrowly defined and justified by a demonstrated need.
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 609) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for Juror 50's right to intervene in the action to obtain a copy of his Jury Questionnaire under seal and asserts his right to privacy regarding his history as a sexual assault survivor. The text references an inquiry initiated by Judge Nathan regarding Juror 50's conduct and potential non-disclosure during jury selection, heightened by intense media scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00008981.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 609) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing outlines arguments related to Juror 50's request to intervene and the potential release of their jury questionnaire to counsel under seal. The arguments address jurors' privacy rights, potential criminal exposure, and compliance with a prior order from Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 604) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 17, 2022. The text presents a legal argument regarding juror misconduct, asserting that a juror hid a central issue during selection that they later raised during deliberations. The filing argues that the defense should not be required to prove the juror's 'willfulness' to obtain relief, citing Supreme Court precedents (Sheppard v. Maxwell, Irvin v. Dowd) regarding fair trials for unpopular defendants facing adverse publicity.
DOJ-OGR-00008964.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Government filing from February 16, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government argues against the defendant's requests to redact specific information from a briefing, including arguments about the jury pool composition (specifically regarding sexual abuse survivors), investigative steps taken by the defense, the defense's view of underlying facts, and discovery requests. The Government asserts these redactions are not authorized by the Court's previous orders or are not narrowly tailored.
DOJ-OGR-00008954.jpg
This legal document is a motion arguing that Ms. Maxwell's conviction should be vacated and the S2 Indictment dismissed. The defense claims that the government's excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing the prosecution violated her due process rights by causing critical documentary evidence and witnesses to become unavailable. The motion reasserts arguments from previously denied pretrial motions, which the Court had granted leave to renew after the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008948.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, is a motion from the government following the conviction of Ms. Maxwell on three conspiracy counts. The government argues that since the evidence at trial proved a single, overarching conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein, punishing her for all three counts would constitute double jeopardy. Accordingly, the government requests that the Court impose judgment on only one of the three conspiracy counts.
DOJ-OGR-00008940.jpg
This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that Ms. Maxwell was improperly convicted on Mann Act counts. The defense contends the conviction may have been based on testimony about conduct in New Mexico, which does not violate New York law, thereby constituting a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment that broadened the charges beyond what was originally presented by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00008939.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 600) from the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. It outlines legal arguments regarding the Mann Act conspiracy charges, emphasizing that the government is bound to prove a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55 as the specific criminal object of the conspiracy. The text cites previous court transcripts and filings where the government conceded that the conviction depends specifically on the violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00008935.jpg
This legal document from a court case, filed on February 11, 2022, details arguments over jury instructions concerning whether an offense must be a violation of New York law, even if events occurred in New Mexico. It highlights a specific note from the deliberating jury asking for clarification on Count Four, questioning if defendant Ms. Maxwell could be convicted for aiding a victim's (Jane's) return flight if the criminal intent was tied to the initial flight to New Mexico. The court declined to provide clarifying instructions, referring the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, discusses the background facts regarding jury instructions for Mann Act counts in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It establishes that a conviction required proving an intent to violate a specific New York law (Penal Law § 130.55) and includes a court transcript clarifying this point, particularly in relation to the testimony of a witness named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00008930.jpg
This legal document is an Omnibus Memorandum filed on February 11, 2022, by Ghislaine Maxwell in support of her post-trial motions. The defense argues that her convictions on the Mann Act counts should be vacated due to a constructive amendment from the original indictment, asserting the government failed to properly prove a violation of New York law as required. The motion also seeks alternative relief, including a new trial, judgment on only one conspiracy count, or a complete dismissal of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00008927.jpg
This document is page 3 (marked 'ii') of a legal filing (Document 600) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 11, 2022. It is a table of contents page listing sections on Phone Records, Property Records, Deceased Witnesses, and a motion for a Judgment of Acquittal based on the Government's alleged failure to prove the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008917.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 11, 2022. Judge Alison J. Nathan outlines the requirements for filing amicus briefs (specifically mentioning NACDL) and notes that the Defendant's motion for a new trial became fully briefed on February 9, 2022. The Judge states the Court will rule expeditiously and will not delay its ruling for forthcoming amicus briefs.
DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 11, 2022. The Court denies two separate requests: first, it denies Juror 50's motion to intervene in the criminal case, and second, it denies the Defendant's requests to either strike or seal Juror 50's motion. The Court's reasoning relies on legal precedent, stating that motions to strike are disfavored and that Juror 50's motion qualifies as a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access.
DOJ-OGR-00031558.jpg
This document is the final page (page 3) of a legal motion filed on February 5, 2008, by attorney Theodore J. Leopold on behalf of a 'Jane Doe' victim. The motion requests a Protective Order against Jeffrey Epstein and his counsel, alleging systematic harassment, including an incident where an unidentified male claiming to be an attorney approached the victim at her workplace. The document asserts these actions are inflicting further emotional injury on a young girl already 'scarred for life'.
DOJ-OGR-00019840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, detailing Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to secure bail. It outlines the court's reasons for detaining her—flight risk due to foreign citizenship (France, Britain) and unclear finances—and the defense's counter-arguments, including an offer to renounce her foreign citizenship and the assertion that witness testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein rather than her. The text notes that despite these arguments, the judge denied bail for a second time.
DOJ-OGR-00019833.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal filing dated April 1, 2021 (Case 21-58), in which Ghislaine Maxwell's defense argues for her presumption of innocence despite public opinion ('cries of the mob'). The document formally moves the Court for her immediate release under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and U.S. Code sections regarding release and detention.
DOJ-OGR-00019810.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket sheet in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 29, 2021, detailing filings from December 2020. The entries consist of letters and orders between Maxwell's counsel and Judge Alison J. Nathan concerning briefing schedules for a renewed bail motion, requests to seal documents, and ongoing concerns about Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The court denies a request to summon the prison warden but orders the government to provide regular updates on her confinement conditions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity