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-00017237.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing the charge in Count Three of an indictment. The charge alleges that the defendant participated in a conspiracy from approximately 1994 to 2004 to transport individuals under the age of 17 for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. The document outlines the object of the conspiracy and the legal requirement to prove an agreement between the defendant and at least one other person.
DOJ-OGR-00017233.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains Jury Instruction No. 32 regarding 'Conspiracy to violate federal law' (Counts One, Three, and Five). The judge defines conspiracy under Section 371 as a 'criminal partnership' and explicitly instructs that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crime was never committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017225.jpg
This document is page 204 of a court transcript (Document 767, filed 08/10/22) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instructions 22, 23, and the start of 24. The text outlines the legal standards for Count Four (transportation of a minor), specifically requiring the government to prove Ms. Maxwell knew 'Jane' was under 17, and clarifying that the failure to actually accomplish the intended illegal sexual activity is not a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017209.jpg
This document is a page from a judge's charge to the jury in a criminal case, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury not to be swayed by lawyers' objections or the judge's own rulings and comments, emphasizing that these are matters of legal procedure. The judge stresses that the jury's own recollection of the facts is what governs their decision-making and that statements from counsel are not evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00014008.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The discussion centers on whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias, specifically in relation to her statement "it fell into my lap." The judge cites the Second Circuit case *United States v. Harvey* to clarify the applicable law on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00014000.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca are discussing procedural matters with the Judge regarding the admission of prior inconsistent statements for a witness named 'Carolyn' (who is present from out of state) and future discussions regarding witnesses 'Jane' and 'Annie'. The attorneys reference specific transcript lines (1610 and 1611) and an FBI 302 report.
DOJ-OGR-00013989.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of an expert witness named Loftus (Dr. Elizabeth Loftus) discussing the malleability of human memory, specifically how linguistic labeling (e.g., 'incident' vs. 'fight') can alter a person's recollection of events.
DOJ-OGR-00013986.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of an expert witness named Loftus (likely Elizabeth Loftus), who is testifying about memory contamination, the difference between open-ended and leading questions, and the impact of stress on memory. The witness advises using neutral questions to avoid contaminating a witness's memory and notes that stress is usually relevant to the time of the event itself rather than the interview environment.
DOJ-OGR-00013966.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus). The witness discusses her professional accolades, noting that her CV is 47 pages single-spaced. She highlights her election to the United States National Academy of Sciences in approximately 2004 as her most prestigious award.
DOJ-OGR-00013960.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the testimony of a witness named Sud, questioned by Mr. Everdell regarding the interpretation of columns in financial records (invoices) related to Epstein between January 1999 and December 2006. The witness confirms that the records list passenger names and invoice amounts.
DOJ-OGR-00013954.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness named 'Sud' regarding the data entry of invoices and billing records into QuickBooks, specifically noting how individual passenger travel was often billed under a single company or group profile name.
DOJ-OGR-00013951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of Ms. Espinosa's testimony, confirming she worked at Jeffrey Epstein's Madison Avenue office but never at his homes or Palm Beach property. Following her dismissal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Mr. Raghu Sud, who is sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00013936.jpg
This page of court testimony features the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa describes guests visiting Jeffrey Epstein's office, noting that doors were usually shut during visits. The questioning focuses on Celina Midelfart, confirming that Espinosa was tasked with sending her flowers, specifically orchids and bouquets. The page ends with the prosecution asking if Espinosa perceived a romantic relationship between Epstein and Midelfart, which draws an objection from defense attorney Ms. Pomerantz that is overruled by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and clarifies that Mr. Everdell will be calling the first witness. The court then prepares to bring in the jury to proceed with the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The transcript details a discussion between the Judge and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the admissibility of remote testimony for a witness who may have tested positive for COVID-19, referencing Ms. Sternheim's proffer and the standards of Rule 15. The government indicates it would not resist a finding of unavailability if a positive test is confirmed.
DOJ-OGR-00013872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of property records showing a specific property was owned by the 'O'Neills' until 1997, not Maxwell, to impeach testimony from a witness named Kate. The Judge counters that ownership does not equate to residence, noting testimony that Maxwell lived there starting in 1992 regardless of ownership status.
DOJ-OGR-00013856.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a court session where the judge confirms with the government counsel (Ms. Moe) and defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues. The court is then adjourned, with the next session scheduled for Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00013852.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense counsel, the Judge, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the scheduling of jury deliberations around the Christmas holiday. The defense worries the jury might rush to judgment to avoid returning in January, while Ms. Moe argues it is premature to decide but suggests deliberations should proceed if the defense rests by the week of the 20th.
DOJ-OGR-00013850.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a judge (The Court) discusses an attorney-client privilege issue with two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, which centers on a specific email. The judge instructs the attorneys to confer on the matter and sets a potential deadline of the following Wednesday for them to submit legal briefs if they cannot reach a resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00013847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe and others) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The Court agrees to allow the parties to resolve these redaction issues and an attorney-client privilege issue over the upcoming weekend.
DOJ-OGR-00013846.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) involving a dispute over the public release of Defense Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the exhibits, admitted into evidence nine days prior, should be made public immediately without further delay from the government regarding redactions. The government attorney, Ms. Moe, notes she has been in contact with co-counsel Ms. Sternheim regarding the pending redaction issues.
DOJ-OGR-00013839.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion where the Judge instructs Defense Attorney Mr. Pagliuca to provide witness lists and exhibits, noting that the Government (represented here by Ms. Moe) is expected to rest its case that week. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by an unexplained noise, which the Judge jokingly refers to as 'the ghost of Friday.'
DOJ-OGR-00013838.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca explains difficulties in finalizing a witness list because the government rested its case earlier than expected, causing scheduling and travel issues. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the defense was warned repeatedly and demands immediate production of Rule 26 materials, including expert communications, contracts, and witness interview notes.
DOJ-OGR-00013828.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge informs the jury that the government has rested its case and provides strict instructions for them to avoid any media or discussion about the case during a five-day recess. After the jury is excused, a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013808.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Ms. Sternheim concludes her questioning of witness Mr. Mulligan, establishing that he spoke to the New York Times to corroborate a story and that Annie Farmer attended his recent wedding. Ms. Pomerantz then begins a redirect examination regarding Mulligan's memory of conversations with Annie.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity