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-00015137.jpg
This legal document details the sentencing and subsequent appeal of a defendant named Maxwell. Judge Nathan imposed a 240-month prison sentence, citing Maxwell's direct and prolonged participation with Jeffrey Epstein in a sex trafficking scheme involving underage girls, and also sentenced her to a $750,000 fine. The document notes that on February 28, 2023, the Second Circuit court affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence, upholding the lower court's rulings on several key issues.
DOJ-OGR-00015122.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, by Neil S. Binder of the law firm Binder & Schwartz, is a submission to the court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document argues that grand jury transcripts should remain sealed or be released with significant redactions to protect innocent third parties from reputational harm, especially given what is described as relentless and inaccurate press coverage. The core argument is that the privacy interests of these nonparties outweigh the public's interest in disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00015082.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 4, 2025, is a submission from the U.S. Government to judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The government discusses legal precedents for grand jury secrecy, notes that Epstein's death is a relevant factor, and details its ongoing efforts to notify all victims before the information is released. The filing is submitted by U.S. Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, Deputy AG Todd Blanche, and U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.
DOJ-OGR-00015081.jpg
This legal document, dated August 4, 2025, is a letter from the Government to Judges Richard M. Berman and Paul A. Engelmayer. It outlines the submission of grand jury materials related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases, including the dates the respective grand juries met. The Government discusses the process of identifying publicly available information from these materials and presents a legal argument that a 'nolle prosequi' in the Epstein case does not prevent the court from disclosing sealed records.
DOJ-OGR-00015068.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses whether to release grand jury materials related to Epstein and Maxwell. It argues that the current status of the principals (Epstein deceased, Maxwell incarcerated) and their families should be considered, and notes that much of the information is already public through Maxwell's trial and civil litigation initiated by victims.
DOJ-OGR-00015064.jpg
This document is a legal filing from July 29, 2025, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the *In re Craig* factors for disclosing grand jury information and references a July 22, 2025 court order directing the Government to submit specific materials. These materials include indices, full transcripts, and proposed redacted versions of both Epstein and Maxwell grand jury proceedings, as well as confirmation regarding whether victims were notified of the motion to unseal.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00015056.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying defendant Maxwell's request for full access to the grand jury transcripts from her case. The court finds she has not demonstrated a particularized need for the materials, as required by law. However, the court has ordered the government to produce the transcripts for a private (in camera) review by July 28, 2025, after which the court may provide excerpts to Maxwell's counsel if deemed necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00015050.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 22, 2025, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order notes that the Court has not received submissions from either defendant Maxwell or the victims regarding a proposed disclosure. A deadline of Tuesday, August 5, 2025, is set for both parties to submit letters outlining their respective positions.
DOJ-OGR-00015049.jpg
This document is a court order directing the Government to file a memorandum of law and specific Maxwell grand jury materials by July 29, 2025. The memorandum must address factors related to its application, including counsel's review of transcripts and victim notification, and be filed in both redacted and unredacted forms. Additionally, the Government is ordered to submit various Maxwell grand jury transcripts and related exhibits under seal to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014972.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, filed on January 15, 2025. The questioning focuses on the witness's note-taking practices during prior interviews with the government. Rocchio admits to taking temporary notes on topics like "grooming" to research later and then discarding them, but confirms maintaining a file related to their retention in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00014846.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 22, 2022, documents a hearing for Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests she be designated to the women's prison facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program; the court agrees to recommend this to the Bureau of Prisons. Subsequently, the government's counsel, Ms. Moe, moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments, a motion which the court grants.
DOJ-OGR-00014845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, regarding her client Ms. Maxwell's sentence. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized,' but the Court counters that other assets exist and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00014842.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The presiding judge rejects Maxwell's complaints about her treatment at the MDC, noting she had ample resources for legal preparation. The judge criticizes Maxwell for a pattern of dishonesty regarding finances and deflection of blame, noting that while she acknowledged the victims' suffering, she failed to accept personal responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00014830.jpg
This document is page 83 of a court transcript from the sentencing phase of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The defense counsel is arguing for mitigation, highlighting Maxwell's age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive behavior while incarcerated at the MDC, specifically noting her move from solitary confinement to general population where she teaches English and GED classes to other inmates. The text acknowledges she is being sentenced for 'terrible conduct' but argues she poses no recidivism risk and has been an asset to her prison unit.
DOJ-OGR-00014811.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The court confirms a previously established anonymity order for a witness using the pseudonym "Kate," specifically instructing sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness. Kate then begins her victim impact statement, expressing fear for her daughter's safety in the context of eroding women's rights and referencing a collective effort to bring a "common enemy" to justice.
DOJ-OGR-00014803.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing hearing transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, begins her argument for a significant prison sentence by recounting the abuse of victims Jane, Kate, Annie, Virginia, Carolyn, and Melissa starting in 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and a defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, during a sentencing hearing. The judge summarizes the probation department's sentencing recommendation and invites Mr. Everdell to present his arguments. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which version of the sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) applies, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00008546.jpg
This document is a legal filing from December 18, 2021, containing introductory instructions from a court to a jury. The core message of 'Instruction No. 1: Role of the Court' is to establish the court's absolute authority on matters of law, directing the jury that they have a sworn duty to accept and apply the law exactly as the judge presents it, regardless of their own opinions or any conflicting legal arguments made by attorneys during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008530.jpg
This document contains Jury Instruction No. 55 from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The instruction advises the jury regarding 'Preparation of Witnesses,' clarifying that it is not improper for witnesses to meet with lawyers (Government, defense, or personal) prior to testifying to review subjects and exhibits. The judge instructs that while the jury may consider this preparation when evaluating credibility, the weight given to it is within their discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00008462.jpg
This document is a page of introductory jury instructions from a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The judge explicitly outlines the jury's duty to accept the law exactly as the court presents it, setting aside personal opinions or conflicting legal arguments from attorneys. The jury is instructed to consider all instructions together and is permitted to take a copy of them into the jury room for deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00008449.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal because the core information is already public. It outlines significant logistical challenges and potential delays associated with making materials like binders and slides accessible to the public in real-time. As a compromise, the parties have agreed to release the demonstrative materials for public review after the arguments are concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00008446.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on December 19, 2021, outlines the status of various trial exhibits. The Government reports that after conferring with the defense, they have reached an agreement on redactions for certain exhibits (GX 603, GX 604, DX AF-1) and asks the Court to admit specific versions into evidence, some publicly and one under seal to protect third-party privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a joint proposal from the prosecution and defense regarding the presentation of closing arguments. The parties argue that alternatives like toggling monitors or using printed binders for the jury are unworkable due to potential interruptions, logistical difficulties, and the risk of inadvertently exposing sealed material, which would violate the privacy of victims and third parties. They propose instead to provide redacted copies of their presentation slides to the public on the following day.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity