Southern District
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Eastern District
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Main Justice
|
Co negotiators |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | A criminal investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators by the Southern District. | Southern District | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations with Main Justice and Southern District | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018481.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named McHugh, presumably a JPMorgan employee, is under direct examination regarding the bank's record-keeping practices and the authentication of Government Exhibits 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, and 509. McHugh confirms that JPMorgan maintains digital images of account statements and that he verified the exhibits by comparing them against the bank's internal system of record on dual screens.
DOJ-OGR-00018471.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A witness named Kate is undergoing redirect examination, where she discusses her plan to renew her O-1 visa and confirms that the government has not made any promises to her regarding her immigration status. She states her motivation for testifying is to demonstrate the importance of standing up for oneself and telling the truth, especially as a parent.
DOJ-OGR-00018465.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the admission of evidence showing the dates a female witness ('she') maintained contact via email with a male subject ('him') to prove a relationship existed after the events in question. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) argues that the witness already admitted to the dates, making the evidence cumulative.
DOJ-OGR-00018462.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal exchange between Ms. Sternheim (Defense) and Ms. Pomerantz (Prosecution) regarding an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K-8' or '3513-019'. Ms. Pomerantz begins a legal argument citing the 'recorded recollection rule' as an exception to hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00018461.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz discuss the admissibility and origin of two exhibits: a visa application bearing the name 'Kate' (Exhibit K-9) and emails between a witness and Mr. Epstein (Exhibit K-7). Ms. Pomerantz clarifies that the visa form was provided by the witness's counsel during a previous meeting to discuss visa status.
DOJ-OGR-00018460.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms with the court and opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, an agreement regarding the '900 series' of exhibits. Following this, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins to make a request for the court to order the government to disclose certain information.
DOJ-OGR-00018457.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, questions Kate about her employment in the music industry and her limited knowledge of the requirements for a U visa, specifically its connection to being a victim of a crime. After the questioning concludes, another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a break from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018418.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning concerns Kate's filmography, referencing specific numbered items on a list and the IMDB system. An objection for lack of foundation is made by another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, which the court sustains.
DOJ-OGR-00016909.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The transcript captures the conclusion of the government's case, as confirmed by Ms. Comey, and the subsequent colloquy between the judge and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge formally advises Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify or not to testify, stressing that the decision is hers alone, despite any advice from her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00016907.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that prior testimony from Jeffrey Epstein regarding his move to 9 East 71st Street (which he stated was around 1996) is relevant because a witness named 'Jane' claimed he lived there in 1994. The Court sustains an objection to this line of argument, referencing a prior ruling regarding the 'motive to develop' testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016897.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey informs the court that stipulations have been reached and the case is nearing conclusion, though one disputed issue remains. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins to address the court regarding this disputed fact.
DOJ-OGR-00016885.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is addressing the Court regarding the timeline of the defendant's residence at a property on Kinnerton Street in London. Everdell argues that despite a deposition statement where the defendant claimed to be there in 1992 or 1993, she did not own or reside at the property at that time, noting that another couple lived there prior to her purchase.
DOJ-OGR-00016882.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely Ghislaine Maxwell's trial). Attorney Mr. Everdell is explaining to the Court why a potential witness was not disclosed earlier, stating they were still verifying the witness's utility. They discuss '26.2 material' (Jencks Act material) and reference a conversation from 'yesterday' (December 16th) regarding the trial schedule, aiming for closing arguments on the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016879.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, clarifies for the record that discovery materials related to an individual named Jane contain very few names (five or fewer), not hundreds. The court then questions another attorney, Ms. Menninger, about the contact information for a witness, who confirms the witness was personally served and given the necessary contact details.
DOJ-OGR-00016875.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding '3500 material' (discovery) received on October 11th. The conversation focuses on the scope of testimony concerning a person named 'Kelly,' alleged involvement in massages, and the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00016872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Healy, the dismissal of the jury for lunch, and a subsequent procedural discussion regarding the release of AUSA Alex Rossmiller from a defense subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00016855.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of Dr. Dubin. The questioning focuses on Dubin's personal life in the 1990s (birth of a child in 1997) and pivots to her observations of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca raises objections regarding hearsay and vague time frames, which the Court partially sustains, leading the questioner to narrow the focus to the period between 1994 and 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00016366.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is cross-examining witness A. Farmer regarding potential inconsistencies between her testimony about being nude during a massage and statements she made to Mr. Baker of The New York Times. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) objects to the line of questioning, and the Judge sustains the objection, ruling it is not a prior inconsistent statement.
DOJ-OGR-00016359.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, concerning Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) is being cross-examined by Ms. Menninger about a 2006 visit from agents and the presence of holiday decorations. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) objects to the defense attempting to show the witness an exhibit marked AF10.
DOJ-OGR-00016358.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer regarding a pair of boots purchased for her by Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning focuses on the wear and tear of the boots, specifically that the witness wore them 'two-stepping' (dancing) after 2006, and whether she had disclosed this usage to the government prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00016234.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brown. Prosecutor Rohrbach introduces Government Exhibit 22, identified as an image from the DMV database, which the Court admits under seal to protect the witness's identity. The proceedings also reference a Defense Exhibit LV3A located in the jurors' binders.
DOJ-OGR-00016229.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dispute between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding Government Exhibit 52G; the defense successfully objects to the prosecution directing jurors specifically to entries labeled 'massage, Florida.' The court also admits Government Exhibit 1009 as a public stipulation.
DOJ-OGR-00016226.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge clarifies a procedural matter with counsel, Ms. Moe, regarding which parts of evidence marked as 'identification 52' are being entered into the record. After a brief recess, the judge confirms with both Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that they are ready to proceed and directs that the jury be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding 'Exhibit 52' (identified as a book). The defense argues against providing the full book to the jury due to limited cross-examination and relevance, while the prosecution argues the physical object is necessary for the jury to evaluate its authenticity.
DOJ-OGR-00016219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admission of 'Exhibit 52.' The defense (Pagliuca) argues that only photocopies of specific pages, not the entire exhibit, were intended for the jury, while the full exhibit should be preserved for appellate purposes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity