| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Harvey Weinstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
This document is page 2 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00008623) of a Table of Contents for Jury Instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines instructions for the jury regarding their role, the burden of proof, and specific charges including 'Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity' (Count Two) and 'Transportation of an Individual Under the Age of 17 to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity' (Count Four). The document details the structure of the legal charge, breaking down specific crimes into their constituent elements for jury consideration.
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.
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 384) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The filing outlines the Defense's arguments that the Government failed to identify co-conspirator statements and overwhelmed the defense with document dumps, violating court orders. The Defense argues this hinders cross-examination and requests the preclusion of these purported statements as a remedy.
This document is page 12 of 17 from a court filing (Document 367-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 22, 2021. It lists proposed voir dire (jury selection) questions 43 through 48, focusing on juror bias regarding expert witnesses, evidence types, and the absence of co-conspirators at trial. The document contains significant sidebar commentary detailing objections from the Defense regarding the wording of questions about search evidence and missing witnesses, citing legal precedents like Skilling v. United States.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $750,000.00 | Fine for Counts 3, 4, 6 related to conspiracy t... | View |
| N/A | Received | Esposito | Court | $9,800,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
| N/A | Received | defendant | Court | $500.00 | Mention of fine for misdemeanors. | View |
| N/A | Received | Karni | Court | $7,500,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $0.00 | Defendant proposes a 'substantially larger bail... | View |
| N/A | Received | Khashoggi | Court | $10,000,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
| N/A | Received | Dreier | Court | $10,000,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $0.00 | Defendant proposes a 'substantially larger bail... | View |
| N/A | Received | Sadr | Court | $32,600,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
| N/A | Received | Narrator | Court | $100.00 | Fine for possession of magic mushrooms (negotia... | View |
| N/A | Received | Ms. Maxwell | Court | $0.00 | Judge intends to impose a fine. | View |
| N/A | Received | Madoff | Court | $10,000,000.00 | Comparative bond amount. | View |
| 2022-07-07 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $505.00 | Filing fee for Notice of Appeal (Receipt number... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $750,000.00 | Criminal Fine imposed at sentencing | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $300.00 | Special Assessment due immediately | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Court | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| 2021-03-26 | Received | Boies Schiller Fl... | Court | $200.00 | Filing fee for Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (R... | View |
| 2021-03-24 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | Court | $505.00 | Appeal Fee Due | View |
| 2021-03-24 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | Court | $505.00 | Appeal Fee Due | View |
| 2021-03-24 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | Court | $505.00 | Appeal Fee Due regarding Notice of Appeal. | View |
| 2021-03-24 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | Court | $505.00 | Appeal Fee Due regarding Notice of Appeal 173. | View |
| 2021-03-24 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | Court | $505.00 | Appeal Fee Due | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Maxwell/Sureties | Court | $10,000,000.00 | Proposed 'eight-figure bond secured by real pro... | View |
| 2021-03-16 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | Court | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed bond package. | View |
The brief was submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.
Forty copies and one unbound copy of the brief were sent through Federal Express.
Service of documents by Priority Mail, postage prepaid.
The brief was submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.
Requesting 30-day extension and word count allowance.
Order to be served on Plaintiff via certified mail, return-receipt requested.
The judge details the calculation of the defendant's total offense level, arriving at 37, and states the corresponding ranges for imprisonment, fines, and supervised release.
Transcript of court proceedings.
Testimony regarding the verification process for obtaining identification cards at the DMV.
Declaration verifying submission of VISs
Claimed to be target of a credible death threat (Dkt. No. 663 at 7).
Recommended sentence of 240 months imprisonment.
Support memorandum filed by defense.
Question regarding history of sexual abuse.
Details specific answers given by Juror No. 50 regarding bias and victim history.
Stated he was abused at age nine or ten by a family member and disclosed it in high school.
Arguments regarding McDonough standard.
Arguments regarding Juror 50 inquiry.
Argument against a new trial (omitted from this specific appendix)
Argument against further inquiry into Juror 50.
Argument for why certain text should be redacted.
Seeking unsealing of documents.
Cited as 'Maxwell Reply, Feb. 9, 2022, at 8 n.4' regarding the legal standard for hearings.
Defense Motion seeking a new trial.
Letters referenced in the order regarding redactions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity