The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Juror court |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. ROBERT
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. CHIUCHIOLO
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Gair
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jurors
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Cohen
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
victims
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Allred
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MUSUMECI
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror court |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Judicial oversight |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Donaldson
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Boies
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Edelstein
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. LONERGAN
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Legal representative |
6
|
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-00005403.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated October 29, 2021, which argues for victim protections during testimony. It cites two judicial precedents: one from Judge Garaufis, who distinguished between a victim's choice to speak publicly and court testimony, and another from Judge Donnelly in the case of *United States v. Robert Kelly*, where the court allowed victims to use pseudonyms due to the sensitive nature of their testimony about sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00005396.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement from the Government, filed on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government submits nine motions in limine to the Court, seeking to set the rules for an upcoming trial. The motions aim to protect victims' privacy, admit certain statements, and preclude the defense from introducing what the Government considers irrelevant, confusing, or improper evidence and arguments, such as questioning law enforcement decisions or attempting to garner sympathy for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00005395.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The motion, presumably from the prosecution, outlines a series of requests to the court to limit the defense's ability to introduce certain evidence and arguments during the upcoming trial. Key issues addressed include protecting witness identities, the admissibility of minor victims' statements, precluding discussion of prior investigations, and preventing arguments related to jury nullification or the defendant's status in a past civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00005381.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 26, 2021, is a submission by the Government to the Court regarding jury selection procedures for an upcoming trial. The Government argues against providing juror identities to the parties weeks in advance, citing precedent that the purpose of voir dire is to identify disqualifications, not to enable deep background research. The Government requests that peremptory challenges be made at the conclusion of voir dire, not on the trial's start date of November 29, 2021, and asks the Court for clarification on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00005371.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing a proposed jury questionnaire. It poses questions to potential jurors about their impartiality, ability to follow rules regarding media, and any hardships that might prevent them from serving in a trial expected to last at least six weeks. The document also includes comments detailing a legal dispute between the Government and the Defendant over whether these specific questions are necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00005363.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated October 22, 2021. It appears to be a proposed jury questionnaire, outlining the charges in Counts Five and Six related to sex trafficking of minors with Jeffrey Epstein between 2001 and 2004. The document also includes questions for potential jurors regarding legal principles like the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, alongside objections from both the defense and the government concerning the wording and content of these sections.
DOJ-OGR-00005359.jpg
This document is an introduction to a legal filing (Document 367-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated October 22, 2021. It outlines a request by the parties for the Court to include specific questions during the examination of prospective jurors (voir dire). The text emphasizes standard legal principles, specifically the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell and the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00002760.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 15, 2021, from attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter outlines the plan for submitting several reply memoranda, explaining that those containing confidential information will be redacted for the public docket. To facilitate this, the attorney will first submit both unredacted (under seal) and redacted versions to the Court and the government via email for review before any public filing.
DOJ-OGR-00002680.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from a legal motion filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense requests that the Court strike allegations related to 'Accuser-3' from the indictment, arguing that the alleged conduct occurred in England where Accuser-3 was above the age of consent and did not involve travel. The motion claims the government is improperly using these allegations to bolster its case regarding Mann Act violations involving 'Accuser-1' and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002667.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 4, 2021, which argues for a specific interpretation of the statutory phrase "offense involving." It cites several court precedents, including cases like Kawashima v. Holder and United States v. Morgan, to support the position that this phrase requires looking at the essential elements of the crime itself, not merely the surrounding circumstances. The D.C. Circuit's analysis of a venue statute is used as a key example to illustrate that for an offense to 'involve' an activity like interstate transportation, that activity must be a formal element of the offense.
DOJ-OGR-00025491.jpg
This document is an email exchange from August 11, 2019, in which an official from the OAG (Office of the Attorney General) sends a detailed timeline of Jeffrey Epstein's final days to Hugh Hurwitz of the Bureau of Prisons for verification. The sender asks if the timeline is accurate and if there is any reason it should not be released to the public. The timeline covers events from Epstein being placed on suicide watch on July 23rd to his death on August 10th, highlighting critical details such as the removal of his cellmate and the failure of staff to perform all required checks on the night he died.
DOJ-OGR-00025462.jpg
This document is an email exchange from August 11, 2019, where an official from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) asks Hugh Hurwitz (from the Bureau of Prisons) and Ray Ormond to verify a timeline of Jeffrey Epstein's final days and asks if it can be publicly released. In his reply, Hurwitz notes he made minor edits and expresses strong reservations about releasing the information without first clearing it with the OIG/FBI, who are conducting an ongoing investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00020349.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court regarding her client, Ms. Maxwell, an inmate at the MDC. Sternheim argues against the MDC's threat to move Maxwell to the Special Housing Unit (SHU), claiming she needs protection from staff, not other inmates. The letter also formally requests the Court to order the MDC to stop the disruptive 15-minute flashlight surveillance of Maxwell while she sleeps.
DOJ-OGR-00020336.jpg
This page is from a legal appeal filed on May 17, 2021, arguing for the temporary release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bond. The defense claims her constitutional rights are being violated by 'squalid' pretrial detention conditions, including sleep deprivation (lights every 15 minutes), intrusive searches, and isolation, which prevent her from effectively preparing for trial. The document references a plea by Judge McMahon and cites a separate case (US v. Tiffany Days) as precedent or context.
DOJ-OGR-00020312.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 19, 2021. The defense is requesting a 90-day continuance (delay) of the trial scheduled for July 12, 2021, citing a recent government disclosure regarding 226 witnesses and scheduling conflicts. The document highlights the defense's need for time to investigate exculpatory information and complains about the government's unilateral expansion of the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00020311.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by the defense counsel for Ms. Maxwell, arguing for a continuance (postponement) of her trial scheduled for July 12, 2021. The defense claims that the challenges of preparing for the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the need to review voluminous discovery and investigate new allegations, make it impossible to be ready by the scheduled date. The filing refutes the government's assertion of trial readiness and details the extensive work still required for an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00005863.jpg
This is a page from a Government legal filing (dated Oct 29, 2021) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that witnesses, including expert Dr. Rocchio and the Minor Victims themselves, should be permitted to use the term 'victim' during testimony. Furthermore, it discloses that the Government expects testimony describing Jeffrey Epstein raping a minor, arguing this is directly relevant to the charges of trafficking and enticing minors.
DOJ-OGR-00005847.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing (dated Oct 29, 2021) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government rebuts defense accusations regarding discovery violations, stating they provided co-conspirator statements 'unusually early' (seven weeks before trial). Additionally, the Government argues against suppressing the identification of the defendant by 'Minor Victim-4,' asserting that the victim knew the defendant personally for decades.
DOJ-OGR-00005843.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the defense is mistaken in its belief that the Court ordered the specific itemization and isolation of co-conspirator statements from other evidence. The filing asserts that the Court's orders only required the 'disclosure' of these statements and that compelling the Government to segregate them would be unsupported by precedent in the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00005836.jpg
This document page discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of testimony from "Minor Victim-3" in a case involving Jeffrey Epstein and a defendant. The text argues against the defense's claim that such testimony would be unfairly prejudicial or cause confusion regarding United Kingdom law, asserting that jury instructions will be sufficient.
DOJ-OGR-00005830.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues for the admissibility of testimony from 'Minor Victim-3' and other victims as direct evidence in a conspiracy case. The prosecution contends this evidence, including overt acts detailed in the indictment, is probative of the defendant's intent and not inadmissible 'other-acts' evidence. The document cites legal precedents, such as United States v. James, to support the argument that acts like drug possession can be considered direct evidence of a conspiracy when charged as overt acts.
DOJ-OGR-00005827.jpg
This page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 397) filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses the Court's previous denial of the defendant's motion to strike indictment language regarding 'Minor Victim-3,' stating it was premature. The majority of the document page is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005785.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 397) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The filing argues for the admissibility of testimony from expert witness Dr. Lisa Rocchio regarding abuse dynamics and from 'Minor Victim-3.' It also argues for the admission of evidence from an October 11, 2021 Government letter and co-conspirator statements at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005743.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 6 of 8 from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for challenging the admissibility of identification testimony, citing several precedents like Raheem v. Kelly and Simmons v. United States. The text explains the two-part inquiry courts must use to determine if a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification is still independently reliable based on factors established in Neil v. Biggers.
DOJ-OGR-00002911.jpg
This legal document is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the court, filed on April 7, 2021, concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the government's public updates on Maxwell's confinement conditions are detrimental, fueling negative media attention and jeopardizing her right to a fair trial. The letter requests that any future updates be limited in scope and filed under seal to protect Ms. Maxwell's privacy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity