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-00020058.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (filed Jan 21, 2021) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text highlights the difficulties of preparing a defense due to COVID-19 lockdowns at the MDC, citing a spike in cases in early December. The conclusion asserts Maxwell's commitment to fighting the charges, staying in New York, and protecting her sureties, urging the court to grant bail on strict conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00020051.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, is part of a court case and argues that the discovery provided by the government fails to corroborate allegations of "grooming" or a conspiracy involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It specifically challenges the government's claims about having incriminating "diary entries" and "flight records," suggesting the evidence produced is minimal and does not support the prosecution's narrative presented at a bail hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00020050.jpg
This is page 30 of a defense filing (likely a bail application) dated December 14, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that despite the government's initial claims of 'strong' evidence backed by flight logs and diaries, the 1.2 million pages of discovery produced so far contain no meaningful corroboration of the charges. The defense emphasizes that the produced documents largely date from the 2000s and 2010s, rather than the 1994-1997 period charged in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00020043.jpg
This legal document is a filing from Ms. Maxwell's defense team arguing that she was not trying to avoid arrest or hide from law enforcement. The defense claims they would have arranged a self-surrender if requested and that her actions during the arrest, such as moving to an interior room and wrapping a phone in foil, were pre-arranged security measures to protect herself from the press, not to evade officers. A new statement from the head of her security company is presented as evidence to support this claim.
DOJ-OGR-00020038.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 29, 2021, argues for Ms. Maxwell to be granted bail. It asserts that she has been financially transparent and was not hiding from the government prior to her arrest, but was instead seeking privacy to protect herself and her family from an intense media frenzy and physical threats that escalated dramatically after Epstein's arrest in July 2019. The filing uses data from LexisNexis to demonstrate the sharp increase in media articles about her following Epstein's arrest as evidence for her need to seek seclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00017403.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Mr. Visoski. Under questioning by Ms. Comey, Visoski describes the interior of Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 and identifies a photograph, Government Exhibit 303, as an accurate depiction of the plane's 'round room' and office area. The court, with no objection from Mr. Everdell, admits the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017399.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. Visoski testifies that between 1994 and 2000, he frequently flew a Gulfstream G2B aircraft for Mr. Epstein. He identifies photographs of the aircraft, including one that shows Mr. Epstein standing in front of it, which are then admitted as evidence by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017361.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the moment the judge thanks and discharges the jury following the verdict. Defense counsel Ms. Sternheim requests the court wait on the presentence report and explicitly asks for a court order to ensure Ms. Maxwell receives a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00005618.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Doc 385) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues that the Government failed to provide timely notice of 'other act evidence' under Rule 404(b) and requests that the Court view any excuse for this delay with skepticism. The defense requests additional time to investigate newly disclosed materials which the Government claims are 'direct evidence' of conspiracy, though the specific details of these materials are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005603.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents a legal argument citing precedents (Katz, Campagnuolo, Wicker) regarding discovery violations, willful misconduct, and the suppression of evidence as a sanction. The filing argues that the government failed to comply with a disclosure order issued months prior and criticizes the government's bad faith in seeking reconsideration rather than compliance.
DOJ-OGR-00005600.jpg
This legal document is a filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense team arguing that the government has violated a court order regarding pre-trial disclosure. The defense claims that instead of identifying specific co-conspirator statements as ordered, the government has improperly directed them to sift through hundreds of thousands of statements from devices seized from Epstein. This tactic, they argue, makes it impossible to prepare for trial and subverts the Court's intention to have such issues litigated in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00005599.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, involving Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the government is evading a court order to identify specific co-conspirator statements by instead providing massive 'document dumps.' The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence and case law (Tracy, Daly, Tellier) regarding the admissibility of hearsay and the requirements for proving a conspiracy exists.
DOJ-OGR-00005590.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE on October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should prohibit the defense from challenging the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial, specifically mentioning Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6. The motion also asserts that any evidence or argument concerning the minor victims' consent is categorically inadmissible given the nature of the charges against the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00005587.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed by the prosecution ('Government') arguing against the defense's desire to introduce evidence related to a past charging decision from a Florida investigation. The prosecution contends this evidence is irrelevant, cumulative, and would invite the jury to speculate, creating a 'bizarre spectacle' that distracts from the actual evidence of the current trial. The document cites case law to support its position that the jury should only consider the evidence presented in this specific case, not the prosecutorial decisions made in other jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00005584.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In it, the Government argues that the defense should not be allowed to introduce evidence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to impeach a redacted individual. The Government claims this is a pretext by the defense to confuse the jury and argue for jury nullification.
DOJ-OGR-00005579.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the prosecution ("the Government") in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should prevent the defense from discussing certain issues or offering related evidence during its opening statement and the trial, claiming such evidence is irrelevant, inadmissible, and prejudicial. The filing cites several legal precedents to support the Court's authority to limit the defense's presentation to ensure a fair trial and avoid a mistrial.
DOJ-OGR-00005576.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the Government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government asks the Court to establish the conditions under which it can introduce prior consistent statements from its witnesses, particularly if the defense attacks their credibility in opening statements or cross-examination. The motion cites Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the precedent set in United States v. Purcell to support its arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00005571.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government is arguing for the protection of 'Minor Victims' by allowing them to testify under pseudonyms. The Government asserts that this protection is necessary to prevent their identities from being exposed by news outlets, which would cause significant harm, and that the Defendant's need for witness information does not outweigh this need for protection. The document cites the Second Circuit's definition of a defendant's interests in witness disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00005568.jpg
This is page 14 of a court filing (Document 383) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text concerns a Government motion requesting that 'Minor Victim-4' be allowed to testify using only her first name to minimize loss of privacy and dignity, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). The document also introduces a section regarding 'Minor Victim-6', but the subsequent text is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005559.jpg
This legal document is a page from a government motion arguing against publicizing the full names of four minor victims in an upcoming criminal trial. The government contends that the defense has not shown a specific need for this disclosure, and that the court should prioritize the victims' privacy and dignity. The motion cites several legal precedents that support protecting witnesses' identities, especially when safety and privacy are concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00005556.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed by the government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The motion outlines arguments to protect the privacy of minor victims by allowing testimony under pseudonyms and sealing exhibits. It also seeks to preclude the defense from introducing what the government deems irrelevant evidence and improper arguments, including prior investigations of the defendant and the government's alleged motives.
DOJ-OGR-00005519.jpg
This document is page 64 of a legal filing (Document 382) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues against government motions to exclude evidence regarding Maxwell's 'charitable works' and 'family history,' suggesting these may become relevant if the government opens those topics. Section X argues strongly against the government's request to preview the defense's evidence, using the metaphor of having 'hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped,' while noting that accusers are testifying under anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00005506.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the defense arguing against the government's pre-trial motion to ban challenges to the credibility of non-testifying witnesses. The defense contends the government's motion is vague, premature, and an attempt to circumvent procedural rules, as it asks the Court to rule on the admissibility of evidence before the context of a trial is established. The defense requests that the motion be denied or deferred until trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005505.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the defense in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's motion to preclude evidence related to its motives for prosecution. The defense asserts its right to present evidence about the timing of the charges against Maxwell in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death, not to claim 'vindictive prosecution,' but to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. The defense argues that the government's motion is an overreach and an attempt to force the disclosure of their trial strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00005405.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a motion from the Government requesting protective measures for witnesses and minor victims in a criminal case. The Government asks the Court to allow several witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or first names only to protect the identities of the minor victims they are testifying about. The motion also requests that a non-testifying minor victim be referred to by her first name only in open court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity