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 | Juror 50 Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of Jury Instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 424 into evidence during the testimony of Mr. Flatley. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Protracted discussion regarding a jury note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Instruction Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of Ms. Brune regarding Government Exhibit 28. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Submission of grand jury materials ex parte and under seal to the Court. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the duration of the conspiracy | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Preliminary Jury Instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Impaneling and swearing in of the jury | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Rodgers regarding Government Exhibit 662 (a logbook). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254 under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal arguments regarding potential mistrial or retrial due to attorney conduct | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Jane' regarding prior statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court discussion regarding jury deliberations and note interpretation | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Evidentiary hearing regarding Juror 50's questionnaire answers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 testified regarding his nondisclosure and subsequent media appearances. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Stay of unsealing order pending appeal | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Evidentiary Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination testimony of Susan Elizabeth Brune. Context clues (graduated 1988 + 'almost 25... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Ms. Brune regarding previous statements and filings. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013631.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of witness A. Farmer (Annie). She describes her internal conflict after an uncomfortable incident in a movie theater involving a man she perceived as generous, and she is then questioned by counsel Ms. Pomerantz about meeting and staying in touch with someone named Epstein in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00013625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Annie Farmer. She testifies about visiting someone named Epstein when she was 16, her hopes at the time for an international trip, and her practice of keeping a journal. The witness identifies a notebook, marked as Government Exhibit 601, as the journal she used during that period.
DOJ-OGR-00013619.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of witness A. Farmer by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The witness testifies about a trip to New York after Christmas 1995, where she stayed with her sister for about a week and met Jeffrey Epstein twice. The witness is also asked to identify 'Government Exhibit 101', which she confirms is her high school photo from her junior year.
DOJ-OGR-00013566.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony focuses on an invoice, identified as Government Exhibit 801, where Ms. Chapell confirms that Jeffrey E. Epstein is the account holder. She further testifies that S. Kellen was the sender of a related package, with Epstein's name also appearing on it.
DOJ-OGR-00013555.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural argument between legal counsel and the judge. The discussion centers on the appropriate method for presenting exhibits to a jury, specifically concerning a witness, Mr. Buscemi, whose testimony would be limited to simply identifying the items. An attorney, Ms. Moe, defends her proposed streamlined approach against objections that it is improper and prevents substantive cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013537.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 the judge and several attorneys regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and the deadline for a government brief. The judge expresses a preference to hold the conference on Friday, while the government's attorney suggests filing their brief by 8 p.m. that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00013529.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Mr. Rodgers denies that his daughter ever massaged Jeffrey Epstein and denies ever receiving $18.3 million from Epstein. He is also questioned about his knowledge of Epstein's properties in New York and Florida, estimating that the New York residence was acquired around 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00013485.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers. The questioning focuses on an unnamed assistant of Epstein, confirming she traveled frequently with him, shared a romantic relationship, and had the same first name as another individual known as 'Jane'. The witness clarifies that despite the shared name, the assistant and Jane are two different people.
DOJ-OGR-00013417.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness confirms details of two specific flights: one on May 12, 1997, from Santa Fe, NM to Van Nuys, CA with Jeffrey Epstein as the only passenger, and another, Flight 1105, on May 3, 1998, from Palm Beach, FL to Teterboro, NJ with passengers Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and an individual identified only as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00013413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers. Rodgers testifies that he first met a passenger, referred to as 'Jane', on a flight on November 11, 1996, and saw her a total of four times on Jeffrey Epstein's planes. He also states that Jane flew with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00013332.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies a photograph, Government Exhibit 105, as being from 'Melissa's 16th birthday' and names Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace as individuals in the photo. Following a request from the government's attorney, Ms. Comey, the court admits the exhibit into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of the individuals depicted.
DOJ-OGR-00013329.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between attorneys and a judge. The discussion revolves around a procedural issue: whether the prosecution can refer to a person named Amanda Lazlo as a victim, given that her name was not previously disclosed to the defense as required by a court order. The attorneys debate the admissibility of testimony about Amanda from a witness named Carolyn the previous day, with Amanda's age (stated as 18) being a key point of contention.
DOJ-OGR-00013299.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion about the admissibility of a piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 761. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to the admission of the 'financial guarantor piece' of the exhibit, which suggests Mr. Epstein provided financial assistance, arguing the school in question did not rely on it. The judge clarifies that the relevance lies in the indication of assistance itself, leading to a discussion about providing a limiting instruction to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010777.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire, identified as Juror ID 2, for the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 29, 2022. The juror indicates they have heard of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell but state that this knowledge would not prevent them from being a fair and impartial juror, and that they can follow the court's instructions to decide the case based only on the evidence presented at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010766.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 29, 2022. Juror ID 2 affirms that their impartiality would not be affected by evidence from law enforcement searches or testimony from expert witnesses. The juror also confirms their willingness and ability to follow instructions to avoid all media and outside discussion of the case until their jury service is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00010763.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 2, filed on June 29, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The prospective juror indicates they have no personal commitments, language difficulties, medical conditions, or medications that would prevent them from serving on the jury. In the optional explanation fields, the juror has written 'Don't Know'.
DOJ-OGR-00010760.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which commenced on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts in the indictment against Maxwell for allegedly conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice and transport minors for criminal sexual activity. The document also affirms that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00010758.jpg
This document is the final page (page 5) of a legal filing submitted by David E. McCraw on June 25, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Citing legal precedents regarding public scrutiny and openness, McCraw requests the Court unseal the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial and the questionnaires of the twelve seated jurors. The filing also requests that future documents related to this motion be filed without sealing, except for redactions necessary to protect juror safety.
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to seal a motion for a new trial, which was based on a juror's alleged failure to properly answer a questionnaire. The author asserts the public's common law right of access to judicial documents, citing legal precedents like 'Amodeo' and 'Lugosch' to argue that the defendant has not met the high standard for secrecy. The document suggests that limited redactions, rather than a complete seal, would be a more appropriate course of action.
DOJ-OGR-00010752.jpg
This is the final page of a court order issued by United States Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan. It instructs counsel to ensure shortened statements conform to requirements and orders the Government to provide copies of the order to counsel for eight specific individuals.
DOJ-OGR-00010747.jpg
This is a court order dated June 24, 2022, from Judge Alison J. Nathan in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order denies the Defendant's request to redact seven written witness statements, citing the presumption of public access and the fact that the witnesses themselves did not seek to file their statements under seal. The Court directs the Government to docket the statements without redactions and affirms that witnesses Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre may present in-person statements at the future sentencing hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The judge denies the Defendant's request to redact statements related to victims Annie Farmer, Kate, and Giuffre, ruling that the documents are judicial records subject to public access under the First Amendment. The court argues that the Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the presumption of public access, noting that the Court (as decision-maker) can evaluate the submissions without prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00010728.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 26, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, is a submission from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The government states it does not oppose an application for an unspecified party to speak at sentencing but notes that the request appears to be governed by a previous court order from June 24, 2022. The document is submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and signed by four Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00010706.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 675) from June 2022 arguing for the importance of allowing victims to speak at Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. It quotes Victim Impact Statements from two survivors, 'Sarah' (from England) and 'Elizabeth' (from Philadelphia), who describe the therapeutic value of the trial and the validation of their trauma after decades of silence. The document asserts that public victim statements serve the broader interest of building confidence in the justice system regarding the Maxwell conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00010698.jpg
This legal document argues that victims, specifically Sarah and Elizabeth, have a right under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to deliver in-court statements at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. It cites legal precedents and legislative intent to support the importance of these "victim impact statements," asserting they are crucial for ensuring victims are heard and for determining an appropriate punishment based on the harm caused.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity