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-00010406.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) from April 29, 2022, likely rejecting a motion by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the defense's failure to prove that missing evidence (financial records, phone records, and pre-9/11 flight manifests) prejudiced the case. The court notes that the defense's claim that these missing records would show an absence of incriminating connections (payments, calls to victims) is purely speculative.
DOJ-OGR-00010399.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely a response or motion, dated April 29, 2022. It defends the Court's decisions regarding jury instructions against objections from the Defendant (Maxwell). The Court rejected the Defendant's requests to limit the charges to specific travel routes (e.g., from Florida to New York) and to instruct the jury on the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Florida, arguing these requests were unnecessary, inaccurate, and would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010391.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 29, 2022. It discusses the court's jury instructions regarding the Mann Act and the predicate New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with individuals under seventeen. The text specifically mentions counts related to the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' and the enticement of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00010387.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, is a court ruling denying a defendant's motions for acquittal and to vacate convictions. The ruling summarizes testimony from witnesses named Annie, Carolyn, and Kate, which established the Defendant's role in a conspiracy with Epstein to transport minors for illegal sexual activity. The evidence included the Defendant paying for sexualized massages, inappropriately touching a witness, and inviting underage girls to locations like New Mexico and Epstein's Caribbean island.
DOJ-OGR-00010384.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court ruling (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on April 29, 2022, upholding the guilty verdict against the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) for Counts Four and Six. The text details testimony from a victim, 'Jane,' describing how she was sexually abused by Epstein starting at age 14 in Palm Beach and transported to New York via private and commercial flights arranged by the Defendant. It highlights a specific incident where the Defendant intervened to help a 15-year-old Jane board a flight without ID and notes the Defendant's presence during sexual abuse incidents in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00010379.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a method of grooming victims like Jane and Annie, paying for things like lessons, school, and promising trips. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the criminal conspiracy, noting that while specific counts focused on New York and Florida, witnesses testified to sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico and London as well. The text highlights the testimony of victims, including Carolyn and Virginia Roberts, who were paid for sexualized massages.
DOJ-OGR-00010373.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes two conspiracy counts against a defendant. Count Three (1994-2004) alleges violations of the Mann Act based on testimony from victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer. Count Five (2001-2004) alleges violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act based on evidence related to Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The defendant contends that Count Five is a subset of Count Three, an argument with which the Court agrees.
DOJ-OGR-00010363.jpg
In this court order dated April 1, 2022, Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) motion for a new trial, concluding that Juror 50 harbored no bias and the selection process was not deliberately flawed. The Court orders a presentence investigation report and confirms that sentencing remains scheduled for June 28, 2022. Additionally, time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act regarding specific counts through April 22, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010361.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions on a questionnaire. The Court found that while the juror admitted to being distracted during the questionnaire, he was attentive and followed all instructions during the more critical phases of voir dire, the trial, and deliberations, and was therefore able to serve as an unbiased juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010348.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's argument that 'Juror 50' was biased based on post-trial statements claiming the verdict was for the victims. The text discusses implied bias related to the juror's personal history of sexual abuse and references legal precedents regarding post-trial juror statements.
DOJ-OGR-00010346.jpg
This legal document details a court's finding that Juror 50 is credible, despite inconsistencies in his jury selection questionnaire. The court analyzed a supportive comment the juror made on Twitter to Annie Farmer, concluding it did not contradict his testimony about not widely discussing his own sexual abuse. Ultimately, the court determined the juror's errors were not intentional deception and he would not have been dismissed for cause had he answered accurately.
DOJ-OGR-00010345.jpg
This legal document analyzes the motivations of Juror 50 for giving post-trial media interviews in which he disclosed his own past sexual abuse. Juror 50 explained he was inspired by the victims in the trial and believed not using his full name would limit the attention from his personal circle. The court concludes that his actions, including a social media interaction with Annie Farmer, do not suggest he intended to deceive when he completed his juror questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010344.jpg
This legal document details the court's analysis of contradictions in Juror 50's statements and actions regarding his past sexual abuse. The Defendant argues that the juror's claim of reluctance to disclose his abuse is undermined by his post-trial media interviews and a social media comment to witness Annie Farmer. In response to the Court's questioning, Juror 50 explained that he did not believe his family or friends would find out about these public disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00010340.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order regarding the validity of the trial verdict in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically addressing 'Juror 50'. The Court credits Juror 50's testimony that he failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse on the jury questionnaire because he was distracted by a recent breakup, felt rushed by the environment, and did not believe he would be selected. The text argues that his failure to disclose was not intentional deceit but a result of lack of focus and the specific wording of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010333.jpg
This legal document details the testimony of Juror 50, who explained that his inaccurate answers on a jury questionnaire regarding past abuse were an inadvertent mistake. He attributed the errors to being distracted by a recent breakup and commotion, rushing to finish, and misunderstanding the questions, rather than an intentional failure to disclose. The Court considered this testimony in deciding how to proceed with questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00010332.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on March 8, 2022, to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false statements during jury selection. This action followed a motion for a new trial by the Defendant, which was based on statements made by the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 1, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for 'Juror 50'. It outlines that Juror 50 completed a questionnaire on November 4, 2021, answering 'No' to questions 25, 48, and 49 regarding prior knowledge or conflicts, and subsequently underwent in-person voir dire on November 16, 2021. During questioning, Juror 50 admitted to seeing a CNN article about the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein but affirmed he could decide the case impartially based solely on evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. It details the process of screening 694 prospective jurors in November 2021, specifically focusing on the inclusion of questions regarding sexual abuse, assault, and harassment in the juror questionnaire. The text describes how counsel for both the Government and the Defendant reviewed these questionnaires and categorized jurors into four lists regarding their eligibility to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00010316.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 intentionally provided false answers during jury selection. It highlights contradictions in his testimony regarding whether his abuser (his stepbrother) was a family member and contrasts his claim of not speaking about the abuse with his decisions to speak to international media and post on social media. The document portrays the juror's explanations as unbelievable and rehearsed, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00010315.jpg
This is page 9 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 15, 2022, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document argues that 'Juror 50' was biased and answered voir dire questions (specifically Question 25 and 49) incorrectly regarding his history of sexual abuse because he does not identify as a 'victim' due to his healing process. The defense argues this psychological coping mechanism prevented accurate answers and demonstrates bias, reiterating objections to the Court's limitation on questioning the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010313.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's defense by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Juror 50 was biased and should have been struck from the jury. The filing asserts that the juror's failure to disclose his history of sexual abuse, coupled with his incredible explanations for false statements on a questionnaire, demonstrates a bias that his own assurances of impartiality cannot overcome. The document cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the claim that juror bias must be determined from circumstances, not the juror's self-serving statements.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010305.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing dated March 15, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's motion for a new trial, asserting that Juror 50 was fair and impartial despite disclosing past sexual abuse. The filing contends the defendant failed to meet the 'McDonough test' requirements to prove juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010303.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues against a defendant's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror bias. It focuses on Juror 50, who had a history of sexual abuse, and contends that despite this, the juror consistently affirmed his impartiality during voir dire on November 16, 2021, and a subsequent hearing on March 8, 2022. The filing asserts that Juror 50's testimony demonstrates he was not biased and was capable of rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence and the court's instructions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity