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-00010275.jpg
This legal document is a filing, likely from the defense, arguing that Ms. Maxwell's conviction on Count Four was improper. The argument centers on a 'Jury Note' which suggests the jury may have convicted her based solely on her intent for sexual activity to occur in New Mexico, without finding intent for abuse in New York, which the defense claims constitutes a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment. The filing accuses the government of mischaracterizing the Jury Note to obscure this issue.
DOJ-OGR-00010274.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022, arguing that the jury in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial had a fundamental misunderstanding of 'Count Four.' The defense argues that the jury asked if intent for sexual activity in New Mexico was sufficient for a conviction based on 'violation of New York law,' and asserts the Court failed to properly correct this misunderstanding.
DOJ-OGR-00010271.jpg
This legal document is a reply memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 11, 2022. The defense argues that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous, asserting that both the prosecution and defense agree that a conviction on the Mann Act counts required proving Maxwell's intent for illegal sexual activity to occur specifically within New York. The filing suggests that allowing for a conviction based on intent for activity in other locations, like New Mexico, would constitute a constructive amendment to the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00010191.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing, specifically a letter dated March 7, 2013, from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III. The letter argues for the good character of an individual named David by citing several character reference letters from people like Charles Austerberry, Theresa Parse, and Bridget Rodgers. These letters praise David's compassionate and effective coaching style, his focus on teaching life lessons over winning, and his commitment to supporting friends in times of need.
DOJ-OGR-00010169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney, Mr. Shechtman, argues that the government's case against his clients, Pace and Brubaker, incorrectly characterizes actions as 'backdating'. He claims that Deutsche Bank records from February and March were simply marked 'as of' and provided to tax preparers, which is different from the government's portrayal and distinguishes his clients from a government cooperator in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010163.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 22, 2022. In it, an attorney argues to a judge that an opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice to "sandbag" the court, but rather a result of incompetence, described as being "careless" and "inept." The speaker references a standard from the Second Circuit and the judge's own prior findings to argue that the other counsel "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00010162.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker criticizes the past actions of an unnamed woman and her two senior colleagues. The speaker argues they failed to properly investigate or report information to the court, possibly due to exhaustion or intimidation, which the judge later termed a 'tragic misjudgment'. This failure to act ultimately led to the substitution of a juror several days later.
DOJ-OGR-00010131.jpg
This legal document details the events of March and May 2011 concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. The firm's lawyers, led by Trzaskoma, investigated whether a juror named Conrad was the same person as a suspended Bronx lawyer with the same name. After reviewing evidence such as voir dire answers and a Westlaw profile, they concluded the two were different people and, lacking actual knowledge or strong suspicion, had no ethical duty to disclose their findings to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010110.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a Mr. Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. An unnamed questioner presses Mr. Berke on whether an attorney has an ethical obligation to report juror misconduct to the court. Mr. Berke consistently avoids a direct yes-or-no answer, stating it's a complex ethical and legal question and that his practice is to consult the relevant ethics rules when such issues arise.
DOJ-OGR-00010082.jpg
This document is a transcript of legal testimony where an individual named Edelstein is being questioned about his role in drafting a legal brief. The questioning focuses on discussions he had with colleagues, Susan Brune and Randy Kim, concerning whether to disclose facts learned from Theresa Trzaskoma on May 12th. The timing of these strategic discussions, specifically whether they occurred before the receipt of a "juror letter," is a central point of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00010052.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing the redirect examination of a witness, Ms. Brune, by an attorney, Mr. Davis. During the examination, a document identified as Ms. Brune's "July 21st letter at the Court" is introduced as Government Exhibit 28. After opposing counsel, Mr. Shechtman, states he has no objection, the Court officially receives the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00010042.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a direct examination of Ms. Brune, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA). The questioning centers on her ethical duty to present facts accurately to the court and government, particularly concerning a "waiver issue" she admits to having missed in a brief. Ms. Brune defends her actions by explaining she believed the government had superior information and she was prepared to respond accurately if they chose to raise the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Ms. Brune (likely an attorney). She is being questioned about a discrepancy between facts presented in a July 21st letter and a legal brief, and a subsequent conference call with Judge Pauley on July 22nd where the Judge expressed unhappiness with the conflicting information. Brune expresses regret for 'missing' something in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning centers on a previous statement made by Ms. Trzaskoma to the court, where she offered to submit a letter about newly discovered facts. The questioner probes whether a specific 'Westlaw report' was one of these facts.
DOJ-OGR-00010036.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about their knowledge of statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during a July 15th conference call. The questioning focuses on the timeline of when Brune read the call transcript in relation to filing a letter on July 21st, implying that Brune may have known Ms. Trzaskoma's statements were incorrect. Brune denies this assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00010035.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed March 24, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on the ethical obligations of a female partner at Brune's law firm, establishing that she has independent obligations to the Court despite Brune's supervisory role. The testimony also references the review of email traffic leading up to the submission of a letter on July 21st.
DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on a conversation at Foley Square and whether a 'Ms. Edelstein' inquired about a 'suspension opinion'. The transcript captures legal objections from attorneys Mr. Schectman and Ms. Davis regarding the accuracy of a date (May 12th) and leading questions, with the judge clarifying the nature of the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00010026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on March 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of Ms. Brune (a former AUSA), questioning her decision not to alert the Court about Google search results regarding a juror found around March 12th. Brune testifies that she did not report it because she relied on the juror's sworn statements claiming to be a 'stay at home wife,' leading Brune to believe the search results referred to a different person.
DOJ-OGR-00010009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune, who appears to be associated with the defense counsel, is questioned about their understanding of the voir dire process, confirming that while the judge leads the questioning of potential jurors, the defense could propose questions and request inquiries into new areas, but the final decision to ask any question rested with the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00010004.jpg
This page is a court transcript excerpt featuring the cross-examination of Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her failure to inform the Court about a Google search revealing a prospective juror, Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits the information was significant but confirms she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time. The document is filed under case 1:20-cv-08130.
DOJ-OGR-00009991.jpg
This page contains court testimony from a witness named Brune regarding the ethics of legal defense. Brune discusses the concept of 'forceful advocacy' and denies raising issues with the Court without believing they had merit. The examination concludes with a transition to questions regarding a former client named David Parse.
DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on allegations that Conrad was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by deliberately omitting that she was an attorney and by providing a false address (Bronxville) to Judge Pauley. Conrad admits to the 'omission' of her legal background but distinguishes it from a lie, while the questioner challenges her credibility and the truthfulness of her statements under oath.
DOJ-OGR-00009895.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing from March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the Court must conduct a broad inquiry into Juror No. 50's potential bias and intent, asserting that the juror has a history of giving false answers. It contrasts Juror No. 50 with Jurors 189 and 239, who properly disclosed details of past sexual abuse in written questionnaires, though the specific details of that abuse are redacted in this document.
DOJ-OGR-00009878.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because a juror, Juror No. 50, failed to disclose his history as a victim of child abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that despite the Court's assurances that it would identify dishonest jurors, Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer direct questions on the topic, and his inclusion on the jury was prejudicial to the defense. Had the juror been truthful, the defense would have immediately challenged him for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009847.jpg
This is the signature page (Conclusion) of a legal document filed by the United States Attorney's Office in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution requests that the Court deny the defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record and instead schedule a hearing to resolve the motion. It is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and four Assistant US Attorneys.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity