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-00008440.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing the parties' presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal, as the content is already largely public. It highlights significant logistical concerns and potential delays that would arise from making the slides public in real-time, such as managing binders and toggling monitors. The parties have instead agreed to make the demonstratives available for public review after the arguments are complete.
DOJ-OGR-00008413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defense should be precluded from introducing statements from other alleged victims unless they first formally proffer which witnesses they intend to call. The government contends this is necessary to prevent the introduction of inappropriate hearsay evidence during opening statements or cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The Court has decided to exclude a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) involving Epstein from evidence, arguing that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses for bias or financial incentives, the NPA itself is not relevant. The ruling notes that the NPA does not provide protection in the current jurisdiction, distinguishing it from the Southern District of Florida where a witness might be protected.
DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 17, 2021, details a court's reasoning for excluding certain evidence from a trial involving Ms. Maxwell. The court argues that evidence proposed by the defense concerning the government's motives for the investigation—including a Miami Herald article and statements from Attorney General William Barr—would confuse and delay the trial, with its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value. The document suggests the defense should focus on the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial instead.
DOJ-OGR-00008358.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 12, 2021, is a request from the Government to the Court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government asks the Court to order the defense to provide a chronologically ordered witness list by specific deadlines, arguing that the alphabetical list of thirty-five witnesses already provided is insufficient for trial preparation. The Government contrasts this with its own prior, more detailed disclosures to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008346.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the court and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the definition of 'illegal sexual activity' in an indictment involving Mr. Epstein. The conversation centers on whether events in New Mexico constitute a crime under the Mann Act and how they relate to proving intent for illegal activity in New York, particularly concerning conspiracy charges against 'minor Victim 2'.
DOJ-OGR-00008317.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey regarding pre-trial motions. The judge rules that an attorney cannot be called as a witness without prior briefing, and the parties discuss the timing and content of jury instructions for witnesses who will be testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00008310.jpg
This is the final page of a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 9, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order overrules the Defense's objections to exhibit GX 52 and instructs the parties to confer on a limiting instruction for the jury and to prepare a stipulation regarding the authenticity of other government exhibits (52A, 52D, 52E, 52F, 52G, and 52H).
DOJ-OGR-00008278.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 533) from the US v. Maxwell case, filed on December 9, 2021. The text argues for the authenticity of Government Exhibit 52 (a contact book seized from Alfredo Rodriguez), citing Juan Alessi's testimony and the defendant's own admission in a 2016 deposition that she recognized the 'actual document,' despite claiming it was stolen. The document asserts the book belonged to both Epstein and the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00008266.jpg
This legal document, dated December 8, 2021, is an argument addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument contends that the government cannot admit a piece of evidence, referred to as Exhibit 52, because it cannot be properly authenticated as a business record under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell disclaimed all knowledge of a related document (Exhibit 13) during a deposition, and therefore the government fails to meet the legal requirements for its admission.
DOJ-OGR-00008236.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on December 5, 2021. The order addresses a motion from the Government concerning the testimony of 'Witness-3' and compels both the Government and the Defense to submit letters to the court on the same day with specific deadlines. The order also reminds the parties to be mindful of sealing requirements under Rule 412.
DOJ-OGR-00008231.jpg
This legal filing from December 5, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues for the exclusion of specific evidence in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that 2019 photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's house are irrelevant and prejudicial because items like massage tables and artwork are 'highly mobile' and may not reflect the conditions present when the accuser, Jane, was there in 1994-1996. The document asserts that the photos are inflammatory and lack connection to Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008230.jpg
This legal document, part of a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 5, 2021, presents an argument criticizing the government's handling of photographic evidence. The author contends that the government failed to properly authenticate 2019 photos as representative of a scene from 1994-1996 by not showing them to a witness named Jane during her testimony. The document dismisses the government's rationale that doing so would have diminished the photos' value as independent corroboration, suggesting the real reason was a fear that Jane's response would not support their case.
DOJ-OGR-00008220.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 4, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government argues for the admissibility of photographic evidence from a search of Epstein's house. The Government intends to use photos of the house's structural features and contents, such as a 'creepy looking' stuffed tiger, to corroborate the testimony of a witness named Jane. Jane testified that the house was 'massive' and 'intimidating,' and the photos are meant to support her claims and counter potential defense arguments about the house's decor.
DOJ-OGR-00008209.jpg
This legal document, dated December 3, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to call Mr. Glassman as a witness to question him about advice he gave to a person named Jane regarding cooperation with the government. The argument posits that any attorney-client privilege was waived when Mr. Glassman disclosed this advice, and that this testimony is crucial for Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020. The judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety restrictions, citing a national emergency and public safety, before turning to the arraignment on an S1 superseding indictment. The judge then begins to question counsel, Ms. Moe, about the specifics of this new indictment compared to the original.
DOJ-OGR-00001831.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the U.S. Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, requesting an extension for producing approximately 1.2 million documents seized from Epstein's residences. The Government asks to move the deadline to November 23, 2020, and to extend the motions schedule. Judge Alison J. Nathan grants the request in an order dated November 9, 2020, setting new deadlines for motions into early 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001813.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a Government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 30, 2020. It addresses delays in electronic discovery production due to vendor volume and refutes defense accusations regarding the definition of the 'Prosecution Team' and the withholding of exculpatory material. A significant footnote (Footnote 2) argues that the 'genesis' of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant because the current defendant (Maxwell) was not a party to it, was not named in it, and the agreement covered a different time period.
DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg
This legal document, dated October 23, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the U.S. Government is improperly withholding critical information. The defense claims the government has not provided details about Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement or meetings held in 2016 to investigate Maxwell. The filing accuses the government of contradicting its earlier court assurances by now disclaiming responsibility for investigative files from Florida that were transferred to the New York F.B.I. office.
DOJ-OGR-00001786.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing submitted on October 7, 2020, by the Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government argues against the premature disclosure of witness identities and sensitive materials to the defense, citing risks to the ongoing investigation and the potential to deter other victims from coming forward. They request the Court to approve a delay in disclosing these materials pursuant to Rule 16(d).
DOJ-OGR-00001781.jpg
This document is the final page (Page 3) of a legal filing (Document 60) submitted on October 6, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government, represented by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz, requests a delay in disclosing witness identities and sensitive materials to the defense to prevent jeopardizing the ongoing investigation and to encourage victims to come forward. The filing cites Rule 16(d) as the legal basis for this protective measure.
DOJ-OGR-00001753.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing from August 17, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document concerns a dispute over materials designated as 'Confidential' by the government, arguing that under Second Circuit precedent, they are 'judicial documents' with a right to public access. It states that Ms. Maxwell has objected to the designation and seeks to provide the materials under seal to judicial officers to resolve pending issues.
DOJ-OGR-00001749.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to disclose documents to judicial officers in other civil cases, citing a lack of good cause and noting that the relevant facts are already public. The text reveals that the Government previously issued grand jury subpoenas to an entity referred to as 'Recipient' regarding an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.
DOJ-OGR-00001718.jpg
This is the final page (6 of 6) of a legal filing submitted on August 10, 2020, to Judge Alison J. Nathan by attorneys Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The document requests that Maxwell be released to the general population within the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) and be granted increased access to a computer terminal to review discovery materials for her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001714.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 10, 2020. The defense argues that the government is delaying the identification of 'Victims 1-3' and providing discovery too slowly, which impairs their ability to investigate allegations spanning 25 years across multiple locations (NY, FL, NM, UK). The text details a timeline of discovery disputes following Maxwell's July 2020 arrest, noting that a 13,000-page initial production failed to clearly identify the accusers.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity