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-00017560.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Jane' by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on Jane identifying photographs of herself (Government Exhibits 107 and 108) and confirming she was 15 and 17 years old, respectively, when they were taken.
DOJ-OGR-00017521.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". The witness identifies Government Exhibit 12 as her birth certificate. Following a request from attorney Ms. Moe and with no objection from attorney Ms. Menninger, the judge permits the jury to view the sealed exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00017515.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Visoski. Under questioning by defense attorney Mr. Everdell, Visoski denies seeing any hint of inappropriate sexual activity or underage girls during roughly 30 years of working for Jeffrey Epstein, stating he would have reported it and quit if he had. The cross-examination concludes, and prosecutor Ms. Comey begins her redirect examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017512.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a pilot named Visoski. The testimony confirms that Visoski accompanied Ghislaine Maxwell as a 'safety pilot' when she flew a helicopter owned and controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. The witness clarifies that Epstein determined the missions and usage of the aircraft, not Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00017480.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Visoski confirms that Jeffrey Epstein gave him 40 acres of land on his New Mexico ranch to build a house and paid for the private high school tuition of Visoski's two daughters. Visoski also acknowledges that Epstein gave gifts to other employees as well.
DOJ-OGR-00017465.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces exhibits LV4 and LV5 under seal to protect witness identities (pseudonyms), which is accepted by Prosecutor Ms. Comey and the Judge. The jury is instructed to view the documents in their folders without showing them to the gallery.
DOJ-OGR-00017456.jpg
This is page 94 of a court transcript (Document 743, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Visoski, confirms during cross-examination that Epstein had an assistant with a specific name and that he had met her. The proceedings are interrupted by attorneys Everdell and Comey to discuss a 'choreography issue' regarding an exhibit that must be submitted under seal rather than displayed on screens.
DOJ-OGR-00017454.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Visoski (likely David Visoski, a pilot) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on pre-trial meetings between Visoski and the government (prosecution), specifically regarding flight log entries. Visoski confirms that the government pointed out specific flights where a female passenger was listed only by a first name, which matched the true first name of a person referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00014506.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, is delivering a summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger systematically attacks the credibility of a key witness by highlighting numerous instances where the witness claims she cannot remember crucial details of her alleged encounters with Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The attorney argues that the witness's lack of memory regarding being touched, kissed, or seeing Maxwell present during sexual acts contradicts the government's case and makes her testimony unreliable.
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
DOJ-OGR-00011710.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording a sidebar conference during the opening statements of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects that the defense is improperly arguing the government is targeting the defendant, violating a pretrial ruling. The Court rules that while the defense cannot attack the prosecution's motives, they are permitted to argue that witnesses are using the defendant as a scapegoat or stand-in.
DOJ-OGR-00011707.jpg
This document is a transcript of the defense's opening statement in the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. The defense attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that the jury must focus solely on whether the government can prove the charges against Maxwell, not on the actions of Epstein. She characterizes the prosecution's case as weak, asserting it relies on the testimony of four accusers whose memories are unreliable, corrupted over 25 years, and motivated by a desire for money.
DOJ-OGR-00011686.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains instructions from the Judge to the jury regarding their conduct, specifically forbidding them from discussing the case with one another or outside parties until deliberations begin. The text explicitly lists various communication technologies and social media platforms (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.) that jurors are prohibited from using to discuss the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011685.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a judge instructs the jury on their responsibility to evaluate all evidence and witness testimony with an open mind and to avoid forming conclusions until the trial is over. The judge also informs the jury that due to significant media attention, witnesses have been granted permission to use pseudonyms to protect their privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00011682.jpg
This document is page 21 (transcript page 17) of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains preliminary instructions from the judge to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof resting solely on the government, and the defendant's right not to present evidence (specifically using female pronouns 'she' and 'her'). The judge also outlines their own role in deciding rules of law compared to the jury's role as fact-finders.
DOJ-OGR-00011680.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in of a jury consisting of 12 members and six alternates by a court clerk named Ms. Williams. The Judge (The Court) then begins providing preliminary instructions regarding the trial proceedings, specifically explaining the process of opening statements by the government and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00011678.jpg
This is page 13 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court discusses procedural logistics for questioning jurors using a handheld mic and then moves to a sidebar conference to discuss a sealed issue regarding a witness testifying under a pseudonym. The transcript notes that pages 14 through 17 are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011648.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, involving a discussion between the Judge, defense counsel (Pagliuca, Menninger), and the government (Rohrbach). The primary topic is whether potential expert witnesses LaPorte and Naso will testify; the defense suggests it is unlikely and was done out of caution related to a document concerning 'Accuser No. 2,' while the government expresses concern about being surprised mid-trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011647.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding Rule 16 disclosures and the sufficiency of notice provided to the defense concerning the opinions of expert witness Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient, they may face issues later, emphasizing equal standards for both parties.
DOJ-OGR-00011636.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The judge instructs Mr. Pagliuca on the preferred procedure for presenting documents during cross-examination, emphasizing the use of pre-organized, tabbed paper binders for efficiency. The judge also provides for exceptions, allowing for documents not in the binder to be presented either as paper copies or on a screen.
DOJ-OGR-00011635.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the mechanics of presenting documents during cross-examination, specifically debating the use of physical binders versus electronic displays. The Judge instructs counsel to prepare binders for potential use to ensure smooth proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00011627.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding an issue where the defense has subpoenaed the attorney representing 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at trial. The government argues they cannot understand what admissible testimony this attorney could offer that isn't covered by attorney-client privilege and indicates they will move to preclude it.
DOJ-OGR-00011625.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that the defense should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness regarding juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors, and asks for a pretrial ruling to determine if she needs to disclose these facts on direct examination to 'draw the sting.' The Judge orders the parties to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to resolve agreed-upon issues and to submit only genuine legal disputes in writing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity