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-00017841.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Matt. Matt testifies about conversations with a woman referred to as 'Jane,' specifically asking her if she was involved with Jeffrey Epstein for money. The testimony reveals that Jane admitted she had to do things with Epstein she didn't want to do, noting 'it wasn't free,' and the prosecution introduces the term 'massage' into the line of questioning over a defense objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017836.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the testimony of a witness about a woman he was in a relationship with. The Court rules to limit the testimony, allowing only topics from cross-examination that serve to attack the woman's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00017786.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding a document identified as Government Exhibit 761. Jane acknowledges writing the document and clarifies that during her senior year she had a manager, not an agent, as suggested by the questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00017784.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning aims to define the profession of an actor, establishing that they portray fictional characters for a living using their voice, body, and lines written by others. The transcript also includes an objection from another attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding a court exhibit, which the judge agrees to review.
DOJ-OGR-00017776.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by a lawyer, Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on whether Jane's cooperation with the government was motivated by potential financial gain from civil litigation against the Estate of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as well as a victims' compensation fund. The transcript also captures procedural discussions between the lawyers and the Court regarding the timing of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00017775.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a procedural discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Sternheim, Menninger). The conversation focuses on the next witness, identified as Matt, and addresses how potential evidentiary issues, such as the introduction of prior consistent statements, will be handled. An attorney also requests permission to ask a leading question under Rule 611(c).
DOJ-OGR-00017774.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 sidebar or legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger regarding the specific wording of a cross-examination question for a witness identified as 'Jane.' The discussion focuses on whether the witness believed her testimony would aid her in civil litigation or the 'victims' comp fund.'
DOJ-OGR-00017772.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (likely a criminal trial) where attorneys and the judge are discussing the phrasing of a question regarding a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on differentiating between Jane's understanding at the time she began cooperating with the government versus her current testimony, specifically concerning her financial stake and resolved civil matters.
DOJ-OGR-00017770.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a sidebar or legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge regarding the admissibility of a line of questioning for a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on whether questions about what Jane was told regarding her testimony's impact on a civil case are proper for impeaching the credibility of the prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00017769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a portion of the privilege was waived, while another, Ms. Moe, states she is unprepared to respond. The judge ultimately rules that the issue is too complex to be decided on the spot and requires the parties to submit formal legal briefs on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a sidebar or legal argument regarding witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the witness may be motivated to testify in the criminal trial to increase a financial payout in a separate civil case. The Judge ('The Court') expresses concern that questioning the witness about communications with her lawyer regarding this strategy would violate attorney-client privilege and rules to limit the scope of questioning on 401/403 grounds.
DOJ-OGR-00017760.jpg
This document is page 151 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between Ms. Menninger and the Court regarding a proffer and a 40-minute timeline, immediately followed by a luncheon recess. The header indicates the proceedings involved the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017745.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) documenting the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'. The questioning focuses on Jane's communications regarding the Epstein case, specifically confirming that she spoke with Stan Pottinger, her ex-boyfriend Matt, and some family members. The defense attorney attempts to establish that her knowledge of the Epstein case is influenced by these conversations and press coverage.
DOJ-OGR-00017727.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) depicting a sidebar conference during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane'. Prosecutor Ms. Moe objects to defense questions regarding investigative techniques (specifically showing photographs), citing a previously granted motion in limine. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger attempts to complain about the excessive number of objections, but the Court dismisses the concern, stating the record is clear.
DOJ-OGR-00017694.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding a juror's question about a 'letter of recommendation' and 'Interlochen applications' contained in evidence binders. Following this discussion, the jury enters, and the court instructs Ms. Menninger to resume her cross-examination of the witness identified as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017691.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00017690.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue over the admissibility of questions regarding a witness's ('Jane') settlement negotiations, with the defense arguing it proves bias and the prosecution objecting under Rule 408. The Judge intercedes by citing *Manko v. United States*, suggesting that the civil settlement exclusion rule (Rule 408) may not apply in criminal prosecutions.
DOJ-OGR-00017686.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The core issue is whether questions about a $25 million settlement demand, made by the witness in a civil case, are admissible under Rule 408 to show bias, particularly as the demand was made while a related criminal case against Ms. Maxwell was pending. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues the questions are proper to show bias, while attorney Ms. Moe seeks to limit the scope of the examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a statement Jane made to the government on February 27, 2020, where she admitted she was 'not sure' if she had ever been alone in a room with just Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, contradicting or challenging her current memory.
DOJ-OGR-00017666.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge. The discussion centers on the proper procedure for impeaching a witness who claims not to recall a prior statement made to the FBI. The judge explains that a claim of not recalling is not an inconsistent statement and details the standard process of using a 302 form to refresh the witness's recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00017665.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 captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017617.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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.
DOJ-OGR-00015031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the scientific basis for Rocchio's expert opinions, specifically the studies relied upon and their potential rate of error. Rocchio states he does not rely on a single study and explains that a 'pure error rate' is not typically calculated in social sciences, instead referencing measures like inter-rater reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00015027.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the witness's testimony regarding childhood abuse reporting rates, specifically challenging their conclusions by analyzing the statistics from the "Alaggia study, 2010". The witness defends their position by interpreting the study's data to show that a majority (58%) of victims did not disclose abuse.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity