The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
136 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
61 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Members of the jury
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MR. FOY
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Cohen
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Parkinson
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Days
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Judicial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. CHIUCHIOLO
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Juror court |
7
|
3 |
| 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-00009841.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to compel the production of private communications from 'Juror 50', including emails and social media content from platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The author contends that the requests are an improper and invasive 'fishing expedition' that seeks inadmissible evidence, would harass the juror, and could inhibit future jury deliberations. The document urges the Court to reject all of the defendant's specific requests for information regarding the juror's communications, potential media payments, and social media activity.
DOJ-OGR-00009836.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the defendant's claim that the court improperly handled the voir dire of Juror 50. It provides transcripts from the voir dire of two other jurors, Juror 189 and Juror 239, as examples of the standard procedure used by the court to assess impartiality. The document asserts that these examples demonstrate the court's process was sufficient and that the defendant's claim is contradicted by the record.
DOJ-OGR-00009834.jpg
This legal document discusses a dispute over whether the Court should conduct a further inquiry into 'Juror 50'. The issue arises from a discrepancy between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his 'no' answer to a related question on the juror questionnaire. The defendant argues for an inquiry to determine potential bias, while the document presents a counterargument that such an inquiry is unnecessary based on the existing record and the juror's other responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009822.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no evidence of actual bias from Juror 50 in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. It cites the juror's public statements affirming his belief in the presumption of innocence, the jury's careful deliberations, and his answers during voir dire as proof of his impartiality. The document contrasts this with the defendant's claims that the juror made prejudicial statements after the trial, such as calling her a 'predator'.
DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, details a portion of the jury selection (voir dire) process from November 2021 in a criminal case. It outlines the Court's procedures for narrowing down the pool of prospective jurors and refutes assertions made by the defense. Specifically, it corrects the defendant's claims about the Court's rulings on challenges for cause and clarifies the reasons why certain jurors, some of whom were familiar with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, were excused.
DOJ-OGR-00009767.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for Juror 50 in case 2:20-cr-00030-ABN, filed on March 24, 2022. The juror indicates they have no feelings or opinions about law enforcement searches or expert witnesses that would affect their impartiality. The juror also affirms they have no reservations about their ability to follow strict instructions to avoid all media and not discuss the case outside the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00009764.jpg
This document is page 6 (labeled as -7- in the footer) of a jury questionnaire filed on February 24, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The respondent, Juror ID 50, answers 'No' to questions regarding scheduling conflicts, language barriers, medical conditions, or medication that would prevent them from serving on the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009762.jpg
This document is a schedule and instruction sheet provided to prospective Juror 50 for the trial associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the dates for jury selection (Nov 16-19, 2021) and the start of the trial (Nov 29, 2021), while emphasizing that the jury will not be sequestered and that standard financial hardships are insufficient grounds for excuse.
DOJ-OGR-00009761.jpg
This document is a summary of the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, provided as part of a juror questionnaire for her trial commencing on November 29, 2021. It outlines the six counts in the indictment, which accuse Maxwell of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004 to entice, transport, and traffic minors for criminal sexual activity. The document also reminds potential jurors that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00009758.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It certifies that on January 19, 2022, Nicole Simmons electronically filed 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion for a New Trial' and served it to the government's counsel: Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00009755.jpg
This document is page 63 of a legal filing (Document 642) from March 11, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that submissions by 'Juror No. 50' should remain sealed because they lack merit, the juror has shown a 'lack of reliability' and 'appetite for publicity,' and releasing them could compromise an ongoing investigation into juror misconduct. The document concludes with a legal argument regarding the importance of *voir dire* in ensuring an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009749.jpg
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009739.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that Juror No. 50 is not credible. It cites the juror's nonsensical explanation for a false answer when confronted by a Daily Mail reporter, disputes his claim of having 'flew through' the jury questionnaire by providing evidence of careful completion, and asserts it is unbelievable he would not remember a question about being a victim of sexual assault. The document aims to undermine the juror's truthfulness and fitness to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00009734.jpg
This document is legal filing (Page 42 of 66) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 demonstrated implied bias and lied during voir dire by concealing his history as a sexual abuse victim and his active use of social media (specifically Twitter) during the trial. The filing notes that the juror communicated directly with victim Annie Farmer via Twitter after the trial and framed the verdict as being 'for all the victims.'
DOJ-OGR-00009718.jpg
This legal document presents evidence of potential juror misconduct in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It includes a screenshot of a deleted tweet, allegedly from Juror No. 50, to a witness/victim (@anniefarmer), stating her story was critical to the jury's verdict. The document further alleges that this juror posted about his jury service on Instagram in early January 2022, despite having told the Court during voir dire that he had deleted his account.
DOJ-OGR-00009710.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, alleges juror misconduct. It claims that Juror No. 50 and a second deliberating juror were untruthful on their jury questionnaires by denying they had been victims of sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. The document contrasts this with the other alternate and deliberating jurors, none of whom disclosed such a history.
DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 was dishonest about deleting his Instagram account and his ability to be impartial, noting he posted about the trial post-verdict. The defense explains they did not ask follow-up questions during voir dire because the juror denied bias, contrasting this with other jurors who disclosed abuse histories.
DOJ-OGR-00009703.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details the jury selection process, specifically the debate over the juror questionnaire. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team proposed detailed questions regarding potential jurors' history with sexual abuse and assault. The government objected to these specific questions, and the Court partially sided with the prosecution, resulting in the consolidated 'Question 48' which asked broadly about personal or family history with sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009701.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues for a new trial for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The basis for the request is the allegation that Juror No. 50 provided a false answer on a jury selection questionnaire regarding personal experience with sexual assault, which was a core issue in the case. This alleged dishonesty is claimed to have resulted in an unfair and impartial jury, thereby depriving Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009695.jpg
This document is page 3 (Table of Contents) of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated March 11, 2022. It outlines arguments claiming Ghislaine Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because 'Juror No. 50' allegedly answered voir dire questions (specifically 25 and 48) falsely. The document also argues against Juror No. 50's right to intervene or receive discovery, noting the juror is currently under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009680.jpg
This document is page 19 of a filed juror questionnaire (Document 638) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 9, 2022. Juror ID 50 responds to questions 39, 40, and 41, indicating that their knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and his association with Ms. Maxwell would not prevent them from being impartial ('No' to bias questions) and affirming they can follow court instructions regarding evidence ('Yes' to following instructions). The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009680.
DOJ-OGR-00009663.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which began on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts against Maxwell related to conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for sexual activity between 1994 and 2004. The document also reminds the potential juror that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00009643.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 1, 2022, by the defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It lists specific proposed questions for 'Juror 50' regarding his prior knowledge of the case, his exposure to media reports about Epstein and Maxwell, and how his own history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse may have influenced his state of mind and sympathy for the victims during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009642.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines proposed questions for a hearing regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically probing why the juror answered 'No' to questionnaire questions 48 and 25 regarding past sexual abuse and crime victimization, despite admitting to being sexually abused as a child. The document seeks to establish the credibility of the juror's explanations for these discrepancies.
DOJ-OGR-00009636.jpg
This legal document is a submission from the Government to the Court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 1, 2022. The Government proposes a series of questions for the Court to ask Juror 50 regarding potentially inaccurate answers on a written questionnaire (Questions 25 and 48). The proposed questions also aim to determine if the juror's past experiences with sexual abuse could affect their ability to be fair and impartial, while being mindful of rules that prevent inquiry into a jury's deliberations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity