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-00008406.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The Court has decided to exclude a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) involving Epstein from evidence, arguing that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses for bias or financial incentives, the NPA itself is not relevant. The ruling notes that the NPA does not provide protection in the current jurisdiction, distinguishing it from the Southern District of Florida where a witness might be protected.
DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg
This document is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. The transcript records the adjournment of the proceedings, with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday with plans to reconvene the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a legal argument about witness sequestration. The judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey discuss whether victim witnesses who have already testified should be excluded from hearing other testimony, as they might be recalled for rebuttal. Ms. Comey requests to submit a letter to the court to further address the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00008349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The speaker (the Judge) is outlining logistics for the following Monday regarding jury management. The plan involves assembling jurors in two separate courtrooms connected by video feed, asking them two specific questions regarding their exposure to media about the case and their ability to remain impartial, and subsequently exercising peremptory challenges.
DOJ-OGR-00008337.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021, detailing a conversation between the judge and attorneys for the defense and government. The discussion focuses on whether the defense will call expert witnesses (LaPorte and Naso), with a defense attorney stating it's unlikely and was only considered as a precaution regarding 'Accuser No. 2'. A government attorney expresses concern about the potential for the defense to decide to call these experts in the middle of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. In the transcript, the judge discusses the disclosure of expert witness opinions with defense counsel, Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach. The judge agrees to a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the defense to provide these opinions and reminds them of their obligation under Rule 16 to provide a clear notice of the opinions, stating that it is not a "scavenger hunt."
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008329.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021. The judge and attorneys discuss procedural matters for an upcoming trial, agreeing to resolve a hearsay/relevance issue during the trial itself. The court then raises the issue of whether individuals disclosed by the defense, specifically Kelso and Lopez, should be considered fact witnesses rather than expert witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Mr. Pagliuca), and the Judge regarding the physical inspection of evidence that occurred on November 1st. The Judge instructs the government not to mention specific evidence with uncertain admissibility in their opening statement and transitions the proceedings to discuss the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008326.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion about a motion to preclude Government Exhibit 52. The judge denies the motion to preclude before trial, opting to hear witness testimony first. The conversation, primarily between the judge and attorney Ms. Moe, clarifies that a witness will authenticate the exhibit by testifying they saw a very similar, but not necessarily identical, book, without knowing how the specific exhibit came into government possession.
DOJ-OGR-00008325.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Dec 10, 2021) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The Judge instructs the attorney to prioritize using physical binders for cross-examination exhibits rather than relying solely on digital screens, though exceptions are allowed. The document is stamped with a Department of Justice identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning the practical methods for presenting documentary evidence during a trial. The judge suggests preparing a binder of potential exhibits, while the attorney expresses concern, leading to a discussion about the role of a paralegal in displaying documents on a monitor during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008318.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, captures a discussion where attorney Ms. Moe informs the court of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Moe explains that prospective Juror No. 93 is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness is an executive director, and that this issue has also been flagged for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008317.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey regarding pre-trial motions. The judge rules that an attorney cannot be called as a witness without prior briefing, and the parties discuss the timing and content of jury instructions for witnesses who will be testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00008260.jpg
This is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 8, 2021. Ms. Comey clarifies procedural questions with the Court regarding the presence of supervisors in the witness room. Mr. Everdell (Defense) raises an issue regarding a 'Touhy request' submitted several weeks prior, seeking a witness from Customs and Border Protection to authenticate border crossing records, noting there are complications but hoping for a resolution or stipulation.
DOJ-OGR-00008255.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 8, 2021) discussing pre-trial motions in limine. The Court discusses the schedule for ruling on the Government's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert witnesses Drs. Loftus and Dietz (likely Elizabeth Loftus and Park Dietz). The text also mentions disputes regarding Government Exhibit 52 and the introduction of co-conspirator statements, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 23.
DOJ-OGR-00008250.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 8, 2021. An unidentified court official, likely a judge, outlines the schedule and procedures for the jury selection process (voir dire). The official details the daily schedule, including breaks and end times, and explains how individual jurors will be questioned, with provisions for handling sensitive or embarrassing information confidentially at sidebar and sealing relevant portions of the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00008248.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on December 8, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Court and defense attorney Ms. Menninger regarding the classification of prospective jurors 226 and 404. The judge outlines the logistics for voir dire, planning to call back 231 prospective jurors in groups of 50 per day to seat a final qualified pool of 50 to 60.
DOJ-OGR-00001923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An attorney argues during a bail hearing, dismissing the government's evidence concerning a threat from a 'Ms. Moe' as irrelevant 'spin' not connected to their client, 'Ms. Maxwell'. The attorney then pivots to the legal standard for pretrial release, quoting statute 3142 to argue for release under the least restrictive conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001898.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The proceedings involve Judge Nathan setting a trial date for July 12, 2021, and establishing deadlines for pretrial motions. Prosecutor Ms. Moe requests to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act to facilitate discovery review, to which the defense (represented by Mr. Cohen) does not object regarding scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00001890.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. A representative for the government informs the judge that they are prepared for discovery and have collaborated with defense counsel on a proposed schedule for the trial. The government representative emphasizes their commitment to a thorough review of materials, including an ongoing privilege review of electronic data, and mentions the bulk of materials will be produced by the end of summer. The judge then begins to question the representative about issues with complete disclosure seen in other cases.
DOJ-OGR-00001883.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 10, 2020. It records a dialogue between defense attorney Mr. Cohen, the Judge ('The Court'), and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The discussion concerns Maxwell waiving her right to be physically present for the proceeding and agreeing to proceed via videoconference, with the judge confirming the waiver is knowing and voluntary.
DOJ-OGR-00001802.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues against the defense's position that a co-conspirator committing similar crimes without the defendant constitutes exculpatory evidence under Brady. The Government cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that evidence of a defendant's non-participation in other criminal events or lawful conduct on other occasions is irrelevant to disproving specific charged crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00001085.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a bail hearing dated April 1, 2021, in case 21-770. It outlines the legal standards for detention, citing 18 U.S.C. 3142(g), and clarifies that the government's argument for detaining the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is based solely on her being a flight risk, not a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001080.jpg
This court transcript from April 1, 2021, details a discussion between The Court and Ms. Moe, representing the government, regarding the legal relevance of victim statements in a bail analysis. Following a point raised by Mr. Cohen, The Court seeks the government's position. Ms. Moe clarifies that while victims have a right to participate under the Crime Victims Rights Act, their statements are not part of the government's motion, and their substance should not be considered by the court for the bail analysis.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity