Counsel
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge (implied speaker)
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (presumably the judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Designating Party
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The President
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Administrative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MDC warden
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Peters and Peters
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Legal visits characterized by uncomfortable conditions, lack of privacy, and surveillance | MDC Legal Visiting Rooms | 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 | Jury Charge / Instructions phase of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Scheduled oral argument in both cases. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Side bar conferences | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government Exhibit 10 is admitted into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential firing of the Special Counsel or Attorney General by the President. | Washington D.C. (Implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation Scheduling Discussion | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Recess | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Hearing | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Protracted discussion regarding a jury note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Evidentiary Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Guards setting up a tripod/camera focused on Maxwell during legal conferences. | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Counsel Meeting | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal conferences where Maxwell is separated by a cloudy plastic shield, cannot handle documents,... | MDC Visiting Room | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial in which the jury is being instructed on how to evaluate witness testimony. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court and the Defendant's counsel discussed a note received from the deliberating jury. | Court | 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 proceeding | The court is in session to discuss a note from the jury regarding their deliberation schedule aro... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016928.jpg
This is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place in open court without the jury present, involving a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the draft jury charge and verdict form. The Judge outlines the process for reviewing requested changes to the draft charge page by page.
DOJ-OGR-00009103.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a jury selection process (voir dire) filed on February 24, 2022. A judge questions a prospective juror to determine their ability to be impartial, specifically asking about potential biases concerning law enforcement, defense lawyers, the justice system, and wealthy individuals. The juror consistently affirms their ability to be fair and impartial, stating they have no such biases.
DOJ-OGR-00009092.jpg
This document is page 25 of 30 from a court filing (Document 613-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a 'Closing Question' (Question 51) of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50. The juror marked 'No' in response to whether they wished for any answers to remain confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00009053.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' gave false answers during jury selection, which prevented the Court from properly assessing his impartiality and potential biases. The filing asserts that truthful answers would have led to the juror's removal. It also notes that the juror has continued to engage in 'media exploits,' including appearing in a documentary on January 18, 2022, despite being represented by counsel in this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017360.jpg
This document is a court transcript page dated August 10, 2022, detailing the conclusion of a trial. The judge confirms a unanimous verdict with two individual jurors, then addresses the counsel before formally dismissing the entire jury. The judge provides the jury with specific instructions regarding their freedom to discuss the case while also mandating confidentiality about the deliberation process, the identities of other jurors, and any information under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00010731.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 26, 2022, describes the status of a defendant being held on suicide watch at the MDC. It confirms that despite her status, she has been given all her legal paperwork to prepare for sentencing and has access to her counsel. The document also addresses and reports the resolution of the defendant's complaints regarding clothing and lighting, and notes that the Warden is overseeing an investigation into a separate safety concern she raised.
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details a dispute during a trial over how to respond to a note from a deliberating jury. The Defendant proposed several responses, which the Court deemed legally erroneous, including a simple 'no' and later a request to direct the jury to specific lines of an instruction. The core issue revolves around the Defendant's argument concerning the purpose of a return flight in relation to illegal activity and the Court's discretion in guiding the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. It details the process of screening 694 prospective jurors in November 2021, specifically focusing on the inclusion of questions regarding sexual abuse, assault, and harassment in the juror questionnaire. The text describes how counsel for both the Government and the Defendant reviewed these questionnaires and categorized jurors into four lists regarding their eligibility to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00010262.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing the end of a witness's testimony and a subsequent procedural discussion. A witness denies that reading the case summary, which involves sexual crimes, made them reflect on their own past sexual abuse. After the witness is excused, the judge (THE COURT) discusses the schedule for post-trial briefings with the government's counsel, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00010222.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It details the questioning of a witness or potential juror regarding a jury selection questionnaire they completed on November 4, 2021. The inquiry specifically focuses on question 48, which pertains to whether the individual, their friends, or family have ever been victims of sexual harassment or assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009794.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a jury selection process (voir dire) filed on March 24, 2022. The court questions a potential juror to assess their impartiality, covering potential biases towards law enforcement, criminal defense lawyers, the justice system, and wealthy individuals. The juror consistently affirms their ability to be fair and impartial, stating they have no biases that would interfere with their duties.
DOJ-OGR-00009783.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 24, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to Question 51, indicating that they do not require any of their answers to remain confidential or private from the public record.
DOJ-OGR-00014649.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the jury charge in the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The judge instructs the jury on the requirement for a unanimous verdict, the protocol for filling out the verdict form via the foreperson, and general conduct regarding courtesy during deliberations. The transcript concludes with the judge calling for a sidebar with counsel and the court reporter before submitting the case to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014637.jpg
This document is page 237 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge, specifically addressing the use of pseudonyms for witness privacy due to media attention, and 'Instruction No. 45' regarding the credibility of witnesses and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. The judge instructs the jury that prior inconsistent statements should be used to evaluate credibility, not as affirmative evidence of Maxwell's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014588.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A judge is instructing the jury on how to properly interpret courtroom proceedings, specifically warning them not to draw inferences from lawyers' objections, the judge's rulings, or sidebar discussions. The judge emphasizes that the jury's own recollection of the facts is what governs their decision-making and that they are the sole determiners of fact.
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-00005303.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court filing (Document 365) from October 22, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a 'Closing Question' (renumbered from 50 to 51) for a jury questionnaire, asking jurors if they require confidentiality for any of their previous answers to protect their privacy or avoid embarrassment.
DOJ-OGR-00002801.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 3 of 3) of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order, which instructs counsel to confer regarding redactions for briefings and specifies formatting requirements for filings.
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-00005252.jpg
This legal document is page 3 of a court filing from October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the court's reasoning for denying a defendant's request for attorney-conducted voir dire. The defendant argued for it based on significant pretrial publicity and the case's sensitive nature, but the court concluded that court-conducted voir dire is sufficient to ensure fairness and prevent potential prejudice, citing legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00005215.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 13, 2021, argues for the necessity of individual, sequestered voir dire (jury questioning) for a high-publicity case involving a well-known defendant. The filing contends that the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the charges, specifically sexual abuse of minors, makes it unlikely for jurors to be candid in a group setting, thus hindering the ability of both the defense and prosecution to identify biases and ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008787.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt of a judge's final instructions to a jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. The judge outlines the procedural requirements for reaching a unanimous verdict, communicating the verdict to the court via the marshal, and maintaining courtesy and respect during deliberations. The judge also informs the jury of a brief pause for a side bar conference with counsel and the reporter before the case is officially submitted to them.
DOJ-OGR-00008715.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, designated as Instruction No. 4, from a legal case filed on December 19, 2021. The judge directs the jury to base their verdict solely on their own recollection of the evidence, not on the arguments of the lawyers for the Government or the Defendant. It clarifies that statements from counsel, the judge's comments, legal objections, and side-bar conferences are not evidence and should not influence their determination of the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00011689.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a judge provides preliminary instructions to the jury, emphasizing their duty not to discuss the case with anyone and explaining that all parties and counsel are forbidden from interacting with them. The judge also details the courtroom's specific COVID-19 safety protocols, which require witnesses and lawyers to use a Plexiglas enclosure with a HEPA filter when speaking.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Plaintiffs | Counsel | $0.00 | Obligation to pay counsel a reasonable fee for ... | View |
| 0001-07-01 | Received | Attorney General ... | Counsel | $0.00 | Hypothetical refusal of the Special Counsel's b... | View |
Interpreter Services
Request for sign interpreters or hearing aids.
Legal Defense
Videoconferencing with counsel, observed by guards writing notes.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Court Reporter Attendance
Notice including name, address, and telephone number of attending reporter.
Legal Defense
5 hours daily / 25 hours weekly of privileged attorney-client communication.
Registration status
The court speculates that counsel would have filed an application or a letter to an administrative agency to get a response regarding the individual's registration requirements.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
CorrLinks Correspondence
Emails deleted by MDC prior to the 180-day retention period.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Exhibit 52 issue
Briefing received by the court at 9:45.
Defendant's conditions of confinement
The Court received regular updates regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement based on regular communications between the Government and Bureau of Prisons legal counsel.
jury note
The Court discussed the jury's note with counsel.
Legal calls
The defendant is permitted to make legal calls for up to three hours per day in a private room.
Investigation Documents
Sent more than 1.1 million documents merely as attachments with minimal records.
Civil Litigation
Legal materials and correspondence on the hacked phone.
Defense Preparation
Document claims conditions impair ability to communicate effectively with counsel.
Legal calls
The defendant is permitted to make legal calls for up to three hours per day in a private room.
Restrictions on Ms. Maxwell's confinement
Counsel attempted to address the restrictive conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement through numerous communications, but to no avail.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Juror Lists
Joint submission of four lists regarding which jurors should proceed or be excused.
Disclosure
The Court refers to an email between counsel which appears to contain a disclosure, which is a point of discussion in the hearing.
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Video conference access information
Chambers will email counsel with information on how to access the video conference for the July 14, 2020 proceeding.
Rule 4-4.2
Correspondence stating that pursuant to Rule 4-4.2, 'parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other'.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity