| 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 |
This document is page 2 of a government filing dated January 5, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The Government requests that the Court schedule a hearing/inquiry regarding a juror's recent public statements about sexual abuse and honesty during voir dire, citing specific legal precedents. The document notes that defense counsel was contacted but had not yet responded, and it includes a link to a Reuters article about the juror's admission.
This document is a jury instruction, designated as Instruction No. 51, from a legal case filed on December 19, 2021. It advises the jury that the Government is not required to use any specific investigative techniques to prove its case against the defendant. The instruction emphasizes that the jury's role is solely to determine the defendant's guilt based on the evidence presented, not on the methods used to obtain that evidence.
This document is page 153 of a court filing (Document 563) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 51, which instructs the jury that the Government is not legally required to use any specific investigative techniques to prove its case and that the jury must decide based on the evidence presented.
This document is Page 148 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 46, which guides the jury on how to evaluate testimony provided by law enforcement and government employees, specifically noting that their employment status does not automatically grant their testimony greater weight than that of ordinary witnesses.
This legal document is a transcript from a sentencing hearing on July 22, 2022, where a judge sentences Ms. Maxwell. The judge imposes five years of supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a mandatory special assessment, justifying the fine by noting Ms. Maxwell's ability to pay due to a $10 million bequest she received from Epstein.
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted as an exhibit by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal issues surrounding Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), specifically criticizing the lack of notice given to victims when their confidential records (such as VA medical records) are subpoenaed by defense counsel. It cites a specific instance where a defense attorney used surprise access to psychiatric records to pressure a prosecutor, and references communications involving Rod Rosenstein regarding these procedural rules.
This document appears to be a draft of a legal argument or an internal memo regarding the sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK). It outlines the prosecution's narrative versus the defense's claim of consensual sex, arguing that the defense's theory is implausible given the physical evidence (DNA on undergarments) and the physical description of the defendant. The document carries a House Oversight stamp, suggesting it was part of a larger document production.
| 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 |
Argument that Rule 606 violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation.
Arguments for a new trial (referenced at pages 12-14, 28, 39-43).
A letter identifying evidence/witnesses intended for trial, though defense argues it lacked required reasoning.
Counsel to discuss the waiver with the defendant.
In-person visits available 7 days a week but declined by counsel
VTC calls and supplemental phone calls
Defendant is able to send and receive emails every day
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.
The document mentions defense counsel's contact with prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest.
Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect Discovery when disseminating it via means other than electronic mail.
Defense Counsel must encrypt and/or password protect Discovery when disseminating it via means other than electronic mail.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Defense counsel will be able to schedule legal calls for the defendant on weekends as needed.
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.
Defense counsel had contact with prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest.
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.
The document mentions a scheduling system at the MDC that defense counsel can use to request regular calls with their client.
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.
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.
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 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.
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