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 | Jury selection | The process of jury selection (voir dire) for the trial. The Government is arguing about the proc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A court hearing where Juror 50 testified about his inaccurate answers on a questionnaire. | Court | View |
| N/A | Evidentiary hearing | The court ordered an evidentiary hearing to question Juror 50 about his false statements on the j... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The jury is instructed on the procedures for beginning their deliberations, including electing a ... | jury room | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors over three days. They were gathered in gr... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Trial | An ongoing trial is discussed, with the judge stating they are not delaying it and that it may cl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing where the Court first determined that detention was warranted. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury instruction | The jury was instructed that they could convict the Defendant only on the predicate state offense... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court rejected the Defendant's request for specific limiting instructions regarding the testi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Future court hearing | The court scheduled the next session for the 23rd of the month. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Defendant's renewed motion for bail is being considered by the Court. | United States | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | The Defendant renewed her previous Rule 29 application for a judgment of acquittal. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial was held where a jury found the Defendant not guilty on Count Two. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense advanced an argument which the Court rejected; Court referred jury to instructions. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing of Defendant | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court instructed the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Ms. Brune testifies under oath, answering questions about her process for vetting jurors using ex... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court order | The court orders the government to work with the defense to provide adequate communication betwee... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Mr. Alessi by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, with an objection from Ms. Come... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The defense is arguing that the jury's conviction was based on a constructive amendment of the in... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Annie Farmer is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz, identifies the defendant in the courtroom, a... | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing where the Court found the Defendant's financial information to be incompl... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court order | The Court set a disclosure schedule for Jencks Act material, adopting the Government's proposal. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | The Court ordered the Government to produce the identities of co-conspirators and to 'disclose' a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court action | The Court denied the defense request for relief regarding the isolation of statements in the firs... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019803.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing court activities from July 13 to July 27, 2020. Key events include her arraignment where she pleaded not guilty, the court's decision to grant the government's motion to detain her pending trial, the setting of discovery deadlines, and various motions and orders related to attorney appearances and extrajudicial statements. The document outlines the initial procedural steps in the case following her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00019786.jpg
This document is a log of court entries from December 2020 related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing various letters and orders. Key events include communications regarding briefing schedules, requests for sealing documents, a renewed motion for release on bail, and concerns about Maxwell's confinement conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. The Court issued orders setting submission deadlines, addressing sealing requests, and requiring the Government to provide regular updates on Maxwell's conditions, while denying a request to summon the Warden.
DOJ-OGR-00019781.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering events from July 30, 2020, to August 18, 2020. It details legal arguments regarding a protective order for discovery materials, specifically concerning witness privacy and the defense's ability to reference individuals. The log tracks the filing of motions, affidavits, and responses by defense attorneys (Everdell, Pagliuca) and the government (Rossmiller), as well as orders issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019779.jpg
This document is a court docket from July 2020 detailing proceedings in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. Key events include Maxwell's arraignment where she pleaded not guilty, the denial of her bail, and the setting of a trial date for July 2021. The docket also records various motions and orders concerning legal representation, discovery schedules, and rules of conduct for the parties involved.
DOJ-OGR-00019731.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from January 2021, detailing a series of legal filings in Ghislaine Maxwell's case from early December 2020. The entries include letters from Maxwell's legal team to Judge Alison J. Nathan concerning briefing schedules, sealing requests, a renewed motion for bail, and her conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The document also includes court orders setting deadlines for legal briefs and denying Maxwell's request to summon the prison warden, instead ordering the government to provide regular written updates on her status.
DOJ-OGR-00019724.jpg
This document is a court docket from July 2020 detailing proceedings in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include her arraignment on July 14, where she pleaded not guilty, was denied bail, and remanded into custody. The docket also records subsequent orders and motions concerning discovery deadlines, a defense motion to limit extrajudicial statements (which was denied), and proposed protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00019723.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from July 8 to July 13, 2020. Key events include the filing of a superseding indictment, motions for attorneys to appear on Maxwell's behalf, and a detailed court order outlining the procedures for a remote bail hearing scheduled for July 14, 2020, due to COVID-19 restrictions. The order specifies how the public, press, victims, and legal counsel can access the proceedings via teleconference and limited in-person viewing.
DOJ-OGR-00019701.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from July 2020 detailing proceedings in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include her arraignment where she pleaded not guilty, the denial of her bail, and the setting of a trial date. The document also records various orders and motions filed by both the defense and prosecution concerning discovery deadlines, extrajudicial statements, and a proposed protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00019700.jpg
This document is a court docket from Case 21-58, detailing legal proceedings related to Ghislaine Maxwell between July 8 and July 13, 2020. Key events include the filing of a superseding indictment, motions and notices for attorney appearances on behalf of Maxwell, and a detailed court order outlining the procedures for a remote bail hearing scheduled for July 14, 2020. The order, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, specifies how the public, press, and involved parties can access the hearing via teleconference and limited in-person viewing due to COVID-19 restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00019672.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It details a request by Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team to file an unredacted reply brief under seal because it references material shielded by a criminal protective order and deposition material unsealed by Judge Preska. The filing notes that the government has been consulted and does not oppose this motion.
DOJ-OGR-00017353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, and the Court regarding the trial schedule, particularly concerning holiday plans and the jury's commitment through January 15th. The Judge decides to proceed with the trial every day, overriding preferences for a break, due to the significant concern that a participant testing positive for COVID-19 would cause a substantial quarantine delay, which is deemed a greater risk to the trial's progress.
DOJ-OGR-00017347.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details instructions from THE COURT to the jury regarding their deliberation schedule and adherence to COVID-19 protocols. The court grants the jury's request to end deliberations at 5:00 p.m. today and resume at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, maintaining a general schedule of 9:00 a.m. to at least 6:00 p.m. It emphasizes strict mask-wearing (KN95/N95), social distancing, and offers transportation assistance via Ms. Williams.
DOJ-OGR-00017338.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The presiding judge explains the decision to extend jury deliberations by one hour each day due to a significant spike in COVID-19 cases (omicron variant) in New York City, which poses a risk of disrupting the trial. A participant, Mr. Everdell, briefly acknowledges the judge's statement.
DOJ-OGR-00017288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule around the Christmas holiday. The main point of discussion is whether to offer the jury the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, and the importance of informing them promptly to allow for personal arrangements, such as childcare.
DOJ-OGR-00017267.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge's instructions to a jury in the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The judge outlines the procedures for deliberation, including the election of a foreperson, the method for communicating with the court via written notes, and the process for requesting testimony. Crucially, the judge explicitly instructs the jury not to consider punishment in their deliberations, focusing solely on the evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00013962.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of Elizabeth Loftus's direct examination. Ms. Loftus, identified as a professor and scientist, is called as a witness by the Defendant. The excerpt includes procedural discussions between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and THE COURT regarding the handling of an exhibit and the commencement of the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013955.jpg
This court transcript excerpt, filed on August 10, 2022, contains the direct examination of a witness from the travel agency Shoppers Travel. The witness confirms that Jeffrey Epstein's office was a customer, that the agency booked flights for them, and that in 2016, the witness was asked to generate a report from the company's QuickBooks system related to these activities. The questioning is leading up to the presentation of an exhibit marked RS-1.
DOJ-OGR-00013916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about their knowledge of Ghislaine's residences, confirming she had a townhouse on 65th Street in New York and another residence at 44 Kinnerton Street in London. The witness also states that, to their knowledge, Ghislaine never lived with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013882.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a pre-trial discussion. Defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of an agreement with the government to limit the cross-examination of the first witness, Ms. Espinosa. The agreement specifically prevents the government from questioning Ms. Espinosa about a separate civil lawsuit where Ms. Galindo was a defendant in a case related to Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013849.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge. The discussion revolves around the defense's potential desire to call plaintiffs' attorneys as witnesses, the implications for attorney-client privilege, and a disclosure made in an email. The judge encourages the parties to reach a stipulation regarding what information was relayed to the government to resolve the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00013826.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a witness's testimony, where counsel (Ms. Menninger) confirms the witness was in Germany at the same time a person named Annie was in Thailand. After the witness is excused, another counsel (Ms. Moe) informs the court that the government rests its case.
DOJ-OGR-00013821.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Swain. Swain describes attempting to question a person named Annie about a trip she took to New Mexico, which occurred sometime before her return from Thailand and Vietnam in the summer of 1996. Annie was consistently evasive, refused to discuss the trip, and repeatedly stated, "I'm not going to let it ruin my life."
DOJ-OGR-00013783.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the redirect examination of a witness named Annie Farmer. Farmer testifies that she has not coordinated her testimony with others and states her purpose for being there is to see Ghislaine Maxwell held accountable for harm caused. She also confirms that she submitted a claim to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund.
DOJ-OGR-00013758.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer. The questioning attorney probes inconsistencies between Farmer's statements to a victims' compensation fund, the government, and the jury regarding massages involving Mr. Epstein. The focus is on Epstein's behavior during a foot massage (staring, groaning) and whether the witness's chest was also massaged, contrasting her detailed account to the fund with what she allegedly told the government previously.
DOJ-OGR-00013662.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness identified as A. Farmer. The witness explains their motivation for testifying was to seek accountability, and confirms they were interviewed by law enforcement in New York in 2019 and have met with the government five or six times since. The witness also confirms having previously sued individuals named Maxwell and Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity