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 | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Counts Seven and Eight against Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding three missing jurors who are stuck on the security line or unaccounted for o... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing where Juror 50 may be a witness | The Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of motion to compel immediate disclosure of Minor Victim-4's prior statements. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's State Plea Hearing where the non-prosecution agreement was discussed. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of a witness regarding juror Catherine M. Conrad's background check. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Scheduled oral argument in both cases. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Brune regarding Juror No. 1. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of the evidence portion of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Last bail hearing where the Court expressed concern about lack of ties. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of witness Brune regarding the vetting of Juror No. 1. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Voir Dire / Juror Questioning | Open Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution announces intent to rest case | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | SORA Hearing (Sex Offender Registration Act Hearing) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination testimony of witness Flatley. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Government rests its case. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government Exhibit 10 is admitted into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009627.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Southern District of New York, signed by US Attorney Damian Williams on March 7, 2022. It requests the Court to issue an order compelling a redacted individual to testify at a March 8, 2022 hearing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The request is made pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6003, which typically relate to granting immunity to witnesses to compel testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009621.jpg
This document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Sternheim requests a proffer from the counsel for 'Juror 50' to explain why the juror is asserting their Fifth Amendment right, especially since the juror publicly claimed to have answered all questions honestly. In a handwritten note dated March 3, 2022, Judge Nathan denied the request, stating no grounds were offered for it.
DOJ-OGR-00009618.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 2, 2022, is a request from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The attorneys, led by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, ask the Court to postpone an important proceeding until a convenient date in May. The reason for the request is to ensure that Ms. Maxwell's lawyers can be present for the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009610.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that the Court should deny Maxwell's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, specifically addressing Count One (conspiracy). The text references testimony from a victim named 'Jane' who stated she was abused by both Epstein and Maxwell in New York and was groomed through methods including 'field trips.'
DOJ-OGR-00009596.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to vacate her conviction and dismiss the indictment. The Government contends that the conspiracies were distinct from those of Epstein, despite shared methods like grooming, and that the defendant has failed to prove her due process rights were violated by any pre-trial delay, as she has not shown actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009594.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, analyzes the overlap in time and geographic scope between two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five. It argues that the overlap is minimal, with Count Three primarily covering conduct in the 1990s involving transporting minors from Florida to New York, while Count Five covers a sex trafficking conspiracy in the 2000s. The document references an overt act involving efforts by a defendant and Epstein to solicit a person named Carolyn to travel, and mentions that someone named Kellen took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 621) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. The Government argues that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three (Mann Act conspiracy) and Count Five (Sex Trafficking conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), asserting they are distinct criminal schemes and not multiplicitous. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding jury instructions related to a witness/victim referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00009578.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a jury note submitted during Ms. Maxwell's trial was ambiguous. The defense claimed the note referred to a specific 1997 flight to New Mexico, but this document contends the jury could have been referencing other flights or asking a different question entirely. The document concludes that the defendant's interpretation is 'mere conjecture' and supports the court's decision to reject the defense's arguments on this point.
DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg
This legal document details a court's rejection of the defense's proposed jury instructions in a criminal case. The core dispute revolves around whether sexual activity with a minor named Jane in New Mexico is relevant to proving intent for a charge under New York law. The Court dismisses the defense's arguments as legally incorrect and refuses to alter its instructions to the jury based on the defense's interpretation of a jury note.
DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
This page is from a Government legal filing (Document 621, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against a post-trial motion by the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government asserts that the jury did not improperly convict the defendant based solely on sexual abuse of a victim named 'Jane' in New Mexico, but rather followed instructions regarding violations of New York law. The text discusses jury instructions, the lack of New Mexico specific legal charges presented to the jury, and refutes the defense's claim of a constructive amendment or variance.
DOJ-OGR-00009569.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, specifically page 7 of Document 621 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 25, 2022. The prosecution argues that there was no improper variance between the S2 Indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that the proof of a scheme with Epstein to transport minors to New York for criminal sexual activity directly matched the charges. The document cites legal precedents to support the argument that the defendant was not prejudiced.
DOJ-OGR-00009550.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 620) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 25, 2022. The text discusses a post-trial motion regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror lied during voir dire about social media usage. The Court ruled that a hearing is warranted regarding specific questionnaire answers but denied the Defendant's request to probe the juror's social media history, citing that the juror's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps were consistent with their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009549.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Court orders an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' committed misconduct by failing to disclose a history of sexual abuse and being a crime victim on jury selection questionnaires (Questions 48 and 25). The order cites interviews Juror 50 gave to The Independent and The Daily Mail in January 2022 where he admitted to being abused, which contradicts his sworn jury questionnaire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009544.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a court filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It details the discovery that 'Juror 50' gave media interviews admitting to being a sexual abuse victim despite denying it on his juror questionnaire, leading the Defendant to file a motion for a new trial. The document also chronicles communications between Juror 50 and the SDNY Jury Department/District Executive in January 2022, where the juror sought legal guidance and access to his questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009512.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, dated March 7, 2013. It compiles excerpts from several character reference letters written in support of a man named David. The letters portray David as a compassionate and effective youth sports coach who prioritizes children's personal development and life lessons over winning, contrasting his calm approach with that of other coaches.
DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg
This document is a court transcript where an attorney argues that the opposing defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. The attorney claims the defense knew about a potentially disqualifying issue concerning the 'Brune & Richard law firm' before jury selection but deliberately withheld this information from the court. This action is characterized as an impermissible 'heads-we-win-tails-you-lose' strategy, which the speaker contends is sufficient grounds to defeat a finding of ineffective counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00009492.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which an unnamed speaker recounts a mistaken stock transaction from December 28th of 'year one'. The speaker's broker accidentally sent 10,000 Philip Morris shares to a charity and 10,000 IBM shares to the speaker's daughter, the reverse of the instructions. The error was discovered on January 2nd when the charity rejected the tobacco stock, and the broker subsequently corrected the transaction, backdating it to the original date.
DOJ-OGR-00009491.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a defense attorney's argument. The speaker challenges the government's assertion that an individual 'must have known' about illegal backdated financial transactions simply because he had worked as a junior accountant in the 1980s. The attorney argues this claim of 'mens rea' (guilty knowledge) is not supported by evidence and is not a strong argument according to Second Circuit precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00009487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. An attorney is arguing before the judge regarding the conduct of the 'Brune firm,' suggesting they 'dropped the ball' regarding a revelation about someone with the 'same name' rather than engaging in a deliberate strategy. The speaker notes that this error might result in a 'very long trial' having to be done again, implying a discussion about a mistrial or retrial motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009486.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge ('THE COURT') and a lawyer ('MR. SHECHTMAN') about the government's failure to disclose information in a timely manner and making misleading statements in a memorandum. Mr. Shechtman concedes the point and states his intention to submit the documents in question for the judge's private 'in camera' review, viewing it as an inevitable step to resolve the issue of privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The dialogue involves 'The Court' and attorney Mr. Shechtman discussing the conduct of lawyers named Brune and Richard. The debate centers on whether the lawyers' 'lack of candor' was due to carelessness or a strategic decision to 'game the system' and conceal information from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009484.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney argues before a judge. The attorney contends that the opposing counsel's failure to properly investigate a witness was not a strategic tactic ('sandbagging') but rather incompetence, carelessness, and an oversight, quoting the Second Circuit's language. The speaker believes this failure to act constitutes prejudice and that the opposing side "dropped the ball."
DOJ-OGR-00009483.jpg
This document is a court transcript page where a speaker, identified as CAC3PARC, is addressing a judge ('Your Honor'). The speaker analyzes the actions of an unnamed woman who, along with her two senior colleagues, failed to report critical information to the court during a trial, an act the speaker and judge agree was a 'tragic misjudgment'. The speaker argues that an investigation should have occurred or the court should have been immediately notified, but instead, the issue was dismissed and a new juror was later substituted without anyone connecting the events.
DOJ-OGR-00009477.jpg
This is the second page of a legal document from case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, signed by David Parse and notarized in Illinois on August 3, 2012. The text states that after a paralegal ran a Westlaw report, 'Brune lawyers' concluded that an individual named Conrad was not a suspended attorney and that the Court did not need to be informed. The document was officially filed with the court on August 7, 2012.
DOJ-OGR-00009431.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Berke. The questioning focuses on legal ethics, specifically asking Berke if an attorney is obligated to report juror misconduct to the Court. Berke attempts to qualify his answer rather than giving a simple 'yes' or 'no,' stating he relies on ethical rules and commentary when such issues arise.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity