Defense counsel
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Potential Defense Witnesses
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
U.S. Attorney's Office
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Potential Defense Witnesses
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
Defense team
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Defense Staff
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense Experts/Advisors
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Appeals of Office's decisions to Washington. | Washington | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel's tactics in negotiating with AUSAs, including challenging resolutions collaterally. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel arguing against victim notification letters | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Federal investigation of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | In camera conference | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel review of nude images | FBI | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion and disagreement between Villafaña and Lourie regarding an immigration waiver in the p... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie rejected the proposed immigration language. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Presentation of the document to defense counsel, with two terms dropped from Villafaña's draft: o... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations with Main Justice and Southern District | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Joint Defense Agreement Discussion | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | Signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between the prosecution team and Epstein's defense counsel where the U.S. Attorney reaffi... | Unspecified (likely U.S. At... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Attorney Visits | MDC Attorney Visiting Room | View |
| N/A | N/A | Expected testimony of law enforcement agents | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness 'Carolyn' throws binder of evidence in distress during cross-examination. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination testimony regarding grooming tactics. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions with SDNY | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Civil litigation service attempt | Southern District (NY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Seating of the Jury | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal trial where witnesses testified and were cross-examined. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Defense Counsel. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | In-person legal visit where guards read legal notebooks, denied water, and monitored conversation... | MDC Conference Room | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009058.jpg
This document is page 50 (PDF page 57) of a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a hearing to question Juror No. 50 regarding potential bias, alleging that at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire which violated Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights. The filing argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as it pertains to juror qualifications rather than the content of deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the pre-trial voir dire process concerning Juror No. 50. It outlines the defense counsel's unsuccessful motions to conduct their own voir dire and to have the Court ask jurors specific questions about being victims of crime. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's negative responses to questions about whether he had been a victim of sexual assault or would have difficulty assessing witness credibility, which are key points in a legal argument.
DOJ-OGR-00008984.jpg
This legal document provides the factual background for a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case. After a verdict on December 29, 2021, Juror 50 gave media interviews alleging personal experience with sexual abuse, which prompted the Defense Counsel to send a letter to Judge Nathan seeking a new trial. The judge subsequently issued an order giving Juror 50 until January 26, 2022, to decide if he wants to be heard on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00008983.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by 'Juror 50' on February 24, 2022, requesting to intervene in a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The juror seeks to protect his privacy rights and right against self-incrimination in light of a potential investigation into juror misconduct. To determine whether to file a brief, Juror 50 requests access to his jury questionnaire and voir dire transcript, asking that they be released under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and Defense Counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00008965.jpg
This document is the third and final page of a legal filing (Document 603) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 16, 2022. The text argues against redacting publicly available materials from a briefing. The document is submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, with three other Assistant U.S. Attorneys listed, for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00013600.jpg
A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed August 10, 2022. The prosecutor (Ms. Moe) argues that specific evidence is relevant to prove a female subject was an adult in the 2000s and therefore could not have been an 'underage girl' personal assistant at that time, rebutting a defense photograph. The Court agrees the rebuttal is relevant and allows it, before moving to a sidebar to discuss jury instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00013302.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court and prosecutors Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of 'Exhibit 52' and the lack of further witnesses for it. The prosecution plans to submit a letter arguing for the exhibit's admission based on current evidence before the court goes into recess.
DOJ-OGR-00010732.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal document filed on June 26, 2022, by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The document argues against adjourning a defendant's sentencing, stating that her continued access to legal documents and counsel means the sentencing should proceed as scheduled on June 28, 2022. The document is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey on behalf of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.
DOJ-OGR-00010728.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 26, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, is a submission from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The government states it does not oppose an application for an unspecified party to speak at sentencing but notes that the request appears to be governed by a previous court order from June 24, 2022. The document is submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and signed by four Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00010587.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a lenient sentence for a defendant. The Government refutes the defendant's claims of abuse and poor health during her confinement at the MDC, citing BOP records and courtroom observations of her being 'perfectly healthy'. The Government requests that the Court impose the maximum allowable fine of $750,000, arguing it is warranted given the defendant is a 'multi-millionaire' whose wealth may have come from a co-conspirator.
DOJ-OGR-00010576.jpg
This document is page 41 of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details the long-term psychological harm inflicted on victims, citing expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio and personal statements from victims 'Jane' and 'Annie.' The text highlights the victims' struggles with self-worth, trust, and suicidal ideation resulting from the abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010417.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 2 of 2) of a court filing submitted on May 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It is submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach from the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00010365.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal document filed on April 25, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document, submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and his assistants for the Southern District of New York, states that the Probation Office has no objection to advancing a deadline to June 14, 2022, provided that the parties submit comments on the draft Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) by June 1, 2022. Defense Counsel was copied on the filing.
DOJ-OGR-00010334.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the Court's assessment of 'Juror 50,' who had failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse on a questionnaire; the juror testified that this omission was not intentional and that he could remain impartial. The document also notes the denial of a defense request to stay the ruling pending a documentary featuring the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010323.jpg
This is the second page of a legal filing (Document 652) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 1, 2022. The document is an opposition by the US Government to a motion for a stay, arguing it is based only on the defendant's conjecture. It is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00010320.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal document filed on April 1, 2022, in the Southern District of New York. The filing, submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and his assistants, states that the Government has conferred with defense counsel, and that defense counsel consents to an unspecified request. A copy was sent to the defense counsel via the court's electronic filing system.
DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Ms. Brune (likely an attorney). She is being questioned about a discrepancy between facts presented in a July 21st letter and a legal brief, and a subsequent conference call with Judge Pauley on July 22nd where the Judge expressed unhappiness with the conflicting information. Brune expresses regret for 'missing' something in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00010014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cv-03388-LAK) featuring the direct examination of an individual named Brune. The testimony focuses on the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically discussing a joint defense agreement and the reliance on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge when challenging potential jurors. The witness is also asked if they recall a 'Mr. Aponte' and a juror with a criminal background.
DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's claim that Juror 50 intentionally lied on a juror questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse in order to serve on the jury. The filing contends that Juror 50's other disclosures, such as his knowledge of the defendant's connection to Epstein, are inconsistent with an intent to deceive. It cites legal precedents to support the idea that juror questionnaires should be viewed in context and suggests the matter of credibility should be resolved in a formal court hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, details a portion of the jury selection (voir dire) process from November 2021 in a criminal case. It outlines the Court's procedures for narrowing down the pool of prospective jurors and refutes assertions made by the defense. Specifically, it corrects the defendant's claims about the Court's rulings on challenges for cause and clarifies the reasons why certain jurors, some of whom were familiar with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, were excused.
DOJ-OGR-00009749.jpg
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009744.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' provided false answers during voir dire regarding social media usage to hide biases and ensure selection, noting he later used Twitter to contact victim Annie Farmer and appeared in an ITV documentary. The text contrasts this behavior with Juror No. 55, whose falsehoods were exposed through follow-up questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009708.jpg
This is page 16 of a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document discusses the final composition of the jury, noting that 694 potential jurors answered a questionnaire. A footnote explains that defense counsel was unable to find the Twitter account of 'Juror No. 50' during the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00009579.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes a question posed by a jury during a trial. The core issue is whether sexual activity involving the defendant and a minor named Jane in New Mexico could be considered as evidence for a conviction on a charge related to transporting Jane to New York. The text argues that the jury's question is legally valid and references a prior statement by the Court from the trial transcript to support the relevance of the New Mexico events to the defendant's intent.
DOJ-OGR-00009335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony concerns the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically referencing a joint defense agreement among counsel and the collective nature of juror challenges based on 'gut feelings' rather than perfect knowledge. The questioning turns to a specific juror, Mr. Aponte, and begins to address whether he had a criminal history before the page cuts off.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Defense counsel | $0.00 | Expenditures for professional services in her d... | View |
| 2020-08-13 | Received | Government officials | Defense counsel | $0.00 | Production of discovery totaling more than 150,... | View |
| 2020-07-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Defense counsel | $7,000,000.00 | Retainer paid to attorneys mentioned in governm... | View |
Maxwell Reply at 23
Argument that Rule 606 violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation.
Maxwell Br.
Arguments for a new trial (referenced at pages 12-14, 28, 39-43).
Rule 404(b) Letter
A letter identifying evidence/witnesses intended for trial, though defense argues it lacked required reasoning.
Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding
Counsel to discuss the waiver with the defendant.
Legal consultation
In-person visits available 7 days a week but declined by counsel
Legal consultation
VTC calls and supplemental phone calls
Legal consultation
Defendant is able to send and receive emails every day
Epstein case
The document mentions that OPR's evaluation was aided by 'extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel' which described interactions and decisions.
Ms. Maxwell's case
The document mentions defense counsel's contact with prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest.
Encrypted Discovery materials
Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect Discovery when disseminating it via means other than electronic mail.
Encrypted Discovery materials
Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect Discovery when disseminating it via means other than electronic mail.
Disagreement with 'Confidential' designation of materials
The document outlines a procedure for Defense Counsel to formally notify the Government if they do not concur with the designation of certain documents or materials as Confidential Information.
Disagreement with 'Confidential' designation of materials
The document outlines a procedure for Defense Counsel to formally notify the Government if they do not concur with the designation of certain documents or materials as Confidential Information.
Discovery
The document outlines a rule that if Discovery is disseminated via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect it.
Discovery
The document outlines a rule that if Discovery is disseminated via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect it.
Legal Consultation
Defense counsel will be able to schedule legal calls for the defendant on weekends as needed.
Insufficiency of asset statement for bail package
The Court advised Defense counsel that the Defendant's asset statement was 'cursory' and insufficient to support a bail package because it was not verified and lacked details on expenses, indebtedness, or liabilities.
Ms. Maxwell's case
Defense counsel had contact with prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest.
Access to client
Defense counsel made a request to the MDC for access to their client and was granted access within three hours, even though the request was made after business hours with no notice.
Legal consultation
The document mentions a scheduling system at the MDC that defense counsel can use to request regular calls with their client.
Discovery materials
The document stipulates that when Discovery is disseminated via means other than electronic mail, Defense Counsel is required to encrypt and/or password protect it.
Carolyn's first meeting with the defendant
The document recounts a cross-examination where the defense counsel attempted to skip over the first meeting between Carolyn and the defendant, but Carolyn corrected him.
Carolyn's first meeting with the defendant
The document recounts a cross-examination where the defense counsel attempted to skip over the first meeting between Carolyn and the defendant, but Carolyn corrected him.
Defense's request for the disclosure of the identities of...
Defense counsel conferred with government prosecutors to request the identities of Victims 1-3. The government did not agree to the request, stating it would disclose the identities later through Rule 16 discovery or Jencks Act material production.
Legal and factual challenges to the prosecution
Defense counsel sent 'voluminous letters' to the USAO attacking legal theories and undermining victim credibility.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity