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-00009296.jpg
This document is an index page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the legal case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. It lists various words alphabetically from 'RECROSS-EXAMINATION' to 'revised' and provides the corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00009296.
DOJ-OGR-00009294.jpg
This document is page A-5690 of an index for a court transcript from the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAEum), dated February 15, 2012. The index, prepared by Southern District Reporters, covers terms from 'petition' to 'product' and provides their page and line number locations within the full transcript. The document carries a Department of Justice Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009294.
DOJ-OGR-00009293.jpg
This document is a page from an alphabetical index of a court transcript for the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. The page lists keywords from 'otherwise' to 'petit' and provides the page and line numbers where each term appears in the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and is marked with the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009293.
DOJ-OGR-00009287.jpg
This document is page 65 of a 67-page index from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The index, prepared by Southern District Reporters for a transcript dated February 15, 2012, lists terms alphabetically from 'hardcopies' to 'information' with corresponding page and line numbers. The document is marked with the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009287.
DOJ-OGR-00009285.jpg
This document is page 63 of a court transcript index from the legal case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It provides an alphabetical list of words (from 'experienced' to 'following') and their corresponding page and line numbers within the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and is part of a larger court filing from February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009284.jpg
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' It lists words alphabetically from 'duty' to 'experience' (including 'Edelstein', 'email', 'evidence', 'Exhibit') alongside their corresponding page and line numbers in the full transcript. The document was filed as Exhibit A-5680 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330) on February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009282.jpg
This document is a page from an alphabetical index of a court transcript for the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It lists keywords from 'counsels' to 'deliberating' along with the corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in the full transcript. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters and is part of a larger legal file, as indicated by the case and document numbers at the top.
DOJ-OGR-00009276.jpg
This document is a concordance or index page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It lists occurrences of specific terms (mostly dollar amounts, numbers, and dates) alongside their corresponding page and line numbers in the full transcript. The document was subsequently filed on February 24, 2022, as Exhibit A-5672 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sealed case, filed on July 2, 2021. In the transcript, the judge questions a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, about a procedural issue: why the government has filed a motion for relief from a protective order on behalf of a third party, rather than the third party's own law firm, Boies Schiller, filing it. The judge expresses skepticism about this arrangement and asserts their judicial authority, referencing the Martindell case as applicable precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00004765.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ms. Days (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on June 15, 2021. Ms. Days speaks about her rehabilitation efforts, including the RDAP program, and expresses remorse, after which the Judge states that he is legally bound to impose a mandatory five-year (60-month) sentence despite finding her eloquent and educated. The document mentions Ms. Days' time spent in the SHU (Special Housing Unit).
DOJ-OGR-00004753.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 15, 2021, for a defendant named Ms. Days on her fourth felony narcotics offense. Her attorney, Mr. Donaldson, argues for a 60-month sentence, which is the statutory minimum and three months below the 63-month recommendation from the probation department. The guideline range for the offense was 63 to 78 months.
DOJ-OGR-00004752.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Days, dated June 15, 2021. The defendant confirms waiving her right to be physically present in the courtroom, opting to appear via CourtCall, while the government prosecutor, Mr. Chiuchiolo, states they will rely on their written sentencing submission. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, indicating it was released via a Department of Justice records request.
DOJ-OGR-00004751.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript filed on June 15, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a dialogue between the Court, defense attorney Mr. Donaldson, and the defendant, Ms. Days. The discussion centers on Ms. Days waiving her right to be physically present in the courtroom for her sentencing, opting instead to proceed via video or telephone conference under the CARES Act.
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00014745.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge thanks and discharges the jury, acknowledging their service during the pandemic. Following the jury's dismissal, the court and counsel (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) discuss post-verdict logistics, including a briefing schedule and the presentence report, concluding with Ms. Sternheim requesting a court order for Ms. Maxwell to receive a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00014740.jpg
This is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Pomerantz (Government) and the Court discussing a dispute over redactions in a witness testimony, specifically regarding an answer that lacked a 'predicate foundation.' The Judge reads a portion of the disputed testimony which mentions individuals going 'their separate ways' and explicitly names 'Ghislaine'.
DOJ-OGR-00014737.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule over the New Year holidays (Jan 1 and 2). The Judge insists on a strict schedule to minimize the risk of trial delays caused by potential COVID-19 quarantine requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00014726.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, concerning jury deliberation scheduling. The judge relays a note from the jury requesting to end at 5:00 p.m. and, citing the omicron variant, instructs that deliberations will proceed every day, including weekends if necessary, until a verdict is reached. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe briefly comment, deferring to the court's decision.
DOJ-OGR-00014713.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge regarding the wording of jury instructions about the deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the proposed language might pressure the jury, but the Court overrules her objection, emphasizing its discretion and the need for consistent, neutral language.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014700.jpg
This is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a debate between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding how to answer a jury note concerning 'Count Four' and a 'second element' related to specific flights or trips. The Judge leans toward following the government's suggestion to refer the jury back to the original instructions rather than providing new specifics.
DOJ-OGR-00014694.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and counsel while a jury is deliberating. The court reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of David Rodgers and then discusses the potential of extending deliberations into the next day. Counsel Ms. Sternheim advises that the jury should be allowed to set its own schedule without pressure from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00014688.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) regarding a note received from the jury requesting office supplies, a specific transcript ('Matt's transcript'), and a definition of the legal term 'enticement'. Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the existing instruction stating that such terms have their 'ordinary everyday meanings'.
DOJ-OGR-00014684.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript (Document 771) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the judge instructing the jury ('the 12 of you') to avoid media and communications about the case during a recess for a holiday. The judge also instructs jurors to contact Ms. Williams regarding COVID or other concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00014681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a request (likely from the jury) for physical copies of testimonies from witnesses identified as Jane, Juan, and Kate. The parties discuss the formatting (binders, hole punches) and confirm that Ms. Drescher is printing the transcripts with agreed-upon redactions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity