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 | Legal proceeding | A post-verdict hearing where the Court's inquiry failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Closing arguments are anticipated for the 20th or 21st. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Hearing | An initial bail hearing where the Court found the Defendant had no underlying health conditions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | An attorney is arguing against a 'leadership enhancement' for Maxwell, citing trial testimony to ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | An initial bail hearing was held where the defendant's assets were discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed post-verdict hearing to determine if Juror 50 deliberately lied on a juror questionnaire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | A discussion in court about whether a conspiracy continued through all of 2004 and into 2005. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court outlines the logistics for the upcoming voir dire (jury selection) process. | courtroom, 518 | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A daily meeting scheduled for 8:30 a.m. beginning 'tomorrow' to prepare for voir dire. | courtroom, 518 | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court granted Ms. Maxwell leave to renew her motion after the conclusion of her trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions on the grounds that she failed to show 'actual an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Mr. Robertson asks the Court to reconsider its earlier decision denying him pretrial release, cit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | Jurors completed questionnaires as part of the selection process. The document alleges that at le... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Juror dismissal | An original juror was excused from service due to a family commitment, leading to an alternate ju... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically photographs, an... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Recess | The court calls for a comfort break during the proceedings. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A conversation between THE COURT and MR. SHECHTMAN regarding disclosure of documents and misleadi... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Initial bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court granted the government's motion to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying in... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | The government, represented by Ms. Moe, moved to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlyin... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing was held where the Court found the defendant has no underlying health con... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The Court's consideration of whether to release Juror 50's jury questionnaire and voir dire trans... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Juror 55 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Chapell by Mr. Everdell regarding an invoice (Government's 802) ... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002909.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The document alleges that the MDC violated HIPAA by releasing Maxwell's medical info, describes her deteriorating physical condition (failing eyesight, thinning hair), and details an incident where she was physically abused (shoved) by a guard while being moved to an isolation cell. The defense requests the Court order the MDC to stop releasing health info and demands video evidence of the abuse incident, which the government claims exists but the defense believes was not recorded.
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in the case United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of the defendant's (Schulte) challenges regarding jury selection, specifically concerning the 'fair cross-section' requirement of the Sixth Amendment and an 'Equal Protection' challenge under the Fifth Amendment. The Court dismisses arguments regarding the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors, citing a lack of discriminatory intent and noting that a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel actually increased minority representation rather than diminishing it.
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 589) filed on March 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments that the Jury Plan systematically excludes African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The Court rules that factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency of people moving residences, and the use of voter registration lists do not constitute constitutional violations under the Sixth or Fifth Amendments.
DOJ-OGR-00002835.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on August 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text analyzes a Sixth Amendment challenge regarding jury underrepresentation, specifically examining the 'absolute disparity method' for African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master jury wheel. The Court concludes that the statistical disparities (1.25% and 1.15%) are within tolerated legal limits based on Second Circuit precedents and that Schulte has failed to meet the necessary burden for his claim.
DOJ-OGR-00002800.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 24, 2021, is a court order outlining the procedure for a law firm representing alleged victims to object to a proposed subpoena. The Court acknowledges receipt of a letter from the firm on March 19, 2021, and sets a deadline of March 26, 2021, for the firm to formally file its objections. The order mandates that the law firm must first confer with defense counsel to potentially narrow the issues and discuss redactions, citing legal precedents for these procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00002745.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal letter filed on March 1, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP requests Judge Alison J. Nathan extend the deadline for the defendant's reply to March 15, 2021. The document also notes that the trial is scheduled to begin on July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00002734.jpg
Page 3 of a court filing (Document 160, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on February 23, 2021, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that new asset restraints satisfy flight risk concerns and notes the submission of twelve pretrial motions challenging the government's case. The text strongly criticizes media coverage, claiming Maxwell is being demonized as a scapegoat for Jeffrey Epstein, but asserts her determination to face her accusers at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002712.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 148) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. It details the defense's motion requesting the Court to order the government to disclose Jencks Act material (witness statements, notes, emails, texts) by March 12, 2021, citing the complexity of the case and the global pandemic. The page also begins a section (VI) requesting a list of government witnesses intended for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002690.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. Her attorneys request that the Court either strike all references to 'Accuser-3' from specific paragraphs of the indictment or compel the government to provide advance notice before introducing any evidence related to that accuser. The document is signed by her legal team from three different law firms.
DOJ-OGR-00014474.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, is delivering a closing argument, urging the jury to find Maxwell guilty of sexually exploiting and trafficking underage girls based on witness testimonies from individuals like Juan Alessi, David Mulligan, and Janice Swain. Following the argument, the judge addresses the jury, announcing a 20-30 minute lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00005287.jpg
This document is page 11 of 40 from a jury questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page contains questions 15, 16, and 17 (renumbered from 14, 15, and 16) asking prospective jurors about their biases regarding law enforcement searches/evidence, their experience with expert witnesses, and their ability to adhere to strict media blackout instructions during the trial. The document includes handwritten edits renumbering the questions.
DOJ-OGR-00005284.jpg
This document is page 7 (filed as page 8 of 40) of a blank juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 22, 2021. It contains questions 5 through 8a regarding the potential juror's availability, English proficiency, medical condition, and medication use, with visible manual re-numbering of the questions.
DOJ-OGR-00005282.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 22, 2021, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, provides a schedule for potential jurors. It details the dates for jury selection in mid-November 2021 and the subsequent six-week trial commencing on November 29, 2021. The document stresses the civic importance of jury duty and clarifies that only extraordinary personal or financial hardship will be considered a valid reason for being excused.
DOJ-OGR-00005275.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 22, 2021, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, outlines the court's procedures and schedule for jury selection (voir dire). It sets deadlines in November for submitting juror questionnaires, schedules a potential in-person conference, and details the voir dire process for November 16-19, which will be conducted with public access while considering COVID-19 protocols. The court also denies a request from the parties to seal the questionnaires until after jury selection is complete, citing the need for a fair trial and public access.
DOJ-OGR-00005263.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated October 18, 2021, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of his client, Ms. Maxwell. Pagliuca argues that due to recent government disclosures and a cumbersome two-step file encryption process implemented by the government, there has been insufficient time to meet the deadline for filing motions *in limine*. Citing a previous court order, he reserves the right for the defense to file additional or supplemental motions after the deadline has passed.
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
This document is page 4 of a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues against attorney-led jury selection, supporting Court-led 'voir dire' instead. Additionally, the Government argues that individual sequestered voir dire is not warranted for all questions, suggesting that sensitive topics like sexual abuse and pretrial publicity can be handled at the sidebar rather than in a fully sequestered setting.
DOJ-OGR-00005248.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (regarding the admissibility of victims' sexual behavior) is impractical as it conflicts with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to allow sufficient time for investigation and *in camera* hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00005244.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government, responds to a request from defense counsel for expedited delivery of legal mail to a defendant held at the MDC. The Government argues against the request, citing the burden on the MDC's legal department, and details a timeline of events where a hard drive delivery was delayed by one day due to an 'institutional emergency' at the facility on October 13, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00005239.jpg
This is Page 3 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the Defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding a victim's sexual behavior) is too close to trial, specifically conflicting with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to ensure victims have sufficient notice and the Court has time to resolve sensitive issues.
DOJ-OGR-00005222.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 17 of 17) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 13, 2021. The text requests the Court to grant individual sequestered voir dire due to the sensitive nature of the charges and pervasive pretrial publicity. The document is signed by attorneys Bobbi C. Sternheim, Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, and Laura A. Menninger on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00005220.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on October 13, 2021, discusses the court's authority to manage the jury selection process known as voir dire. It argues that while the court can reasonably limit the time and scope of questioning by attorneys to prevent abuse, the unique circumstances of this case, including extensive pretrial publicity, necessitate an expansion of traditional voir dire protocols to effectively screen potential jurors for bias and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00005204.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, is a joint request from the prosecution (Government) and the defense to the Court. Both parties ask that only jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday be selected for the trial. The defense estimates its case will last approximately two weeks but notes this may change after reviewing late-night disclosures from the Government, which the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had not yet received due to delivery issues at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00002898.jpg
This document is Page 9 of a legal filing (Document 195) from April 5, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that any records obtained via Rule 17(c) subpoenas must be marked confidential under a protective order and shared with the opposing party, citing that the rule does not allow for secretive evidence gathering. It references the reciprocal discovery obligations of Rule 16 and cites the precedent of United States v. St. Lawrence.
DOJ-OGR-00002788.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 23, 2021, argues that the government's case against Ms. Maxwell is weakening, thereby diminishing her flight risk. The filing points to several weaknesses, including a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that may immunize Maxwell, the government's concession that it cannot prove Maxwell or Epstein caused 'Accuser-3' to travel, and evidence that prosecutors misled a judge. The document suggests that despite the government's escalating claims about her flight risk, the deteriorating case against her warrants a reevaluation of her detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002787.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 171) dated March 23, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for her release on bail, claiming she has transparently disclosed her assets (including those held jointly with her spouse) and refuting the government's claim that her wealth makes her a flight risk. A footnote strongly condemns the government's suggestion that defense attorneys would allow escrowed legal funds to be used to support Maxwell as a fugitive.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity