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-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-00016922.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a judge instructs the jury before a weekend recess. The judge stresses the importance of following all instructions, specifically forbidding any communication or consumption of information about the case, and reminds them to keep an open mind until deliberations. The jury is ordered to return on Monday at 9:00 AM.
DOJ-OGR-00016913.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Comey agree to stipulations regarding the admission of redacted Government Exhibits 52-K, 52-J, and 52-L under seal. Additionally, the parties stipulate that the FBI seized Annie Farmer's boots on June 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016911.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey) and the Court regarding scheduling for an ongoing legal proceeding. The parties discuss the timing for bringing in the jury, potential extended hours on Monday to complete proceedings, and the estimated duration of closing arguments, including a summation argument for Ms. Moe and a rebuttal. The conversation focuses on logistical aspects of the trial's conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00016839.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey, and the judge. They are arranging the submission of a new, less-redacted version of flight logs (Exhibit 662-R), agreeing to mark it as '662-RR' for clarity, which will replace a previously offered version.
DOJ-OGR-00016833.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Dubin (likely Eva Dubin). Prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca asks the witness if they have seen media reports regarding Jeffrey Epstein's flight records and whether they believed them to be accurate. Defense attorney Ms. Moe objects twice asking for more specificity, and the Judge sustains the objection, asking Pagliuca to define the timeframe and quantity of the records being discussed.
DOJ-OGR-00016831.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Dubin (likely Eva Dubin) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). During questioning by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca, Dr. Dubin reviews Government Exhibit 248, a photograph she states she has never seen before. She identifies the individuals in the photo as Mr. Epstein and her oldest child (age 27).
DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge. The discussion concerns limiting the scope of questioning for a witness (identified in the header as Dubin) regarding 'sexualized massages' and misconduct involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Mr. Pagliuca argues that the witness's lack of knowledge regarding inappropriate activity is relevant to why she continued dating 'him' (Epstein).
DOJ-OGR-00016813.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a sidebar conversation where counsel Ms. Comey attempts to introduce prior consistent statements of a witness named Jane, which is objected to by opposing counsel Ms. Menninger. The Court sustains the objection on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the current examination but allows for the possibility of recalling the witness for rebuttal.
DOJ-OGR-00016808.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference. Prosecutor Comey argues that FBI Agent Young should be allowed to testify about non-suggestive interview training to rebut defense claims (supported by Dr. Loftus) that witness memories may have been implanted via leading questions. The Judge expresses skepticism, suggesting the line of questioning is 'beyond the scope' and risks 'opening the door' to broader issues regarding interview conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00016796.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Farmer, by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding the date some boots were obtained. The witness is unable to recall the specific date but confirms it happened sometime during that year, before the fall.
DOJ-OGR-00016771.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument by Mr. Rohrbach to the court. He refutes a point made by opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, regarding the defense's ability to challenge an investigation's thoroughness. Mr. Rohrbach argues that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses like 'Jane' about events, they are prohibited from calling a case agent during their direct case simply to highlight investigative steps that were not taken, referencing the Watson and Brady cases as precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00016768.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell debating the relevance of questioning a case agent about the timeline of allegations investigated. Ms. Comey argues that the investigation was broader than the specific charges and that the defense can argue the lack of evidence (DNA, phone records) without putting the agent on the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge warns Mr. Everdell that his intended line of questioning for a witness—focusing on what the government didn't do—would violate a prior court order. Mr. Everdell defends his approach as an attempt to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence, but the judge reiterates that the jury's role is to evaluate the evidence the government did present.
DOJ-OGR-00016761.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that the lack of corroborating documentary evidence, specifically phone records and emails, is due to the age of the allegations (dating back to the 1990s) when such technology was not widely used. The discussion focuses on formulating questions to an agent regarding this absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016758.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. Attorneys Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger discuss with the Court the admissibility of testimony and specific emails involving Mr. Glassman (referencing 'The Lion King') and Mr. Rossmiller. The discussion centers on a prior ruling limiting testimony from attorneys to specific statements regarding whether testifying would help the defendant's case.
DOJ-OGR-00016756.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A judge is explaining their rationale for sustaining several objections related to the testimony of a witness named Annie concerning a Ms. Maxwell. The judge concludes there are no inconsistencies in Annie's testimony, particularly her statement "I don't recall," and discusses these rulings with two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger.
DOJ-OGR-00016753.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It details a judge's rulings on the defense's questioning of a witness named Jane, repeatedly sustaining objections because the defense failed to properly establish a basis for inconsistency between Jane's current testimony and her prior statements from interviews in December 2019 and February 2020. The judge specifically notes that Jane's answer "I don't recall" is not inconsistent with her previous uncertainty about an incident.
DOJ-OGR-00016750.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 records a judge's ruling sustaining the government's objection to the introduction of prior inconsistent statements as extrinsic evidence without first giving the witness an opportunity to explain them. The ruling cites Federal Rule 613(a) and case precedents including United States v. Surdow and Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure.
DOJ-OGR-00016738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on scheduling, with the defense arguing they cannot conclude their case until the following Monday due to outstanding stipulations and a witness who is only available on that day. The identity of this witness is apparently unknown to at least one of the parties, prompting a question from the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00016733.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Defense Attorney Ms. Menninger, The Court, and Government Attorney Ms. Moe discussing the procedure for a witness to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. The Court and Defense agree that a simple letter or email from the witness's lawyer is insufficient to invoke these rights, and the Defense intends to ask for the subpoena to be enforced, requiring the witness to appear.
DOJ-OGR-00016732.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger discusses a third-party witness who has submitted a letter asserting Fifth Amendment privileges to avoid testifying. Menninger argues that the subpoena remains valid and requests the Court enforce it to compel the witness to testify, noting the witness is represented by 'Compton counsel,' a former AUSA.
DOJ-OGR-00016727.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the government's rebuttal might become a second closing argument and requests the court enforce a rule to limit its scope. In response, attorney Ms. Comey assures the judge that the rebuttal will be significantly shorter than the closing, adhering to the standard practice in the district, a position the court affirms.
DOJ-OGR-00016726.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the timing of the jury charge draft and estimates for closing arguments (summations). Ms. Sternheim makes a remark about the government getting 'two cracks' at closing arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00016725.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and two lawyers, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on procedural issues, specifically the potential need to docket an exhibit for an unavailable witness and the judge's refusal to act on a previously submitted letter because its application was unclear. The judge states that the item will only be docketed if it is used as a judicial document in the proceedings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity