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-00020911.jpg
This document contains pages 43 and 44 of a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. The text records the questioning of an individual (likely a juror) regarding their social media interactions with witness Annie Farmer and their failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. The respondent explains they thought the questionnaire did not ask about their 'personal abuse' and admits to making a 'huge mistake' in their interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00020909.jpg
This document is a transcript page (A-283) from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), documenting a voir dire hearing. The Judge questions 'Juror 50' regarding their lack of diligence in filling out a jury questionnaire; the juror admits to being 'distracted' and rushing ('float, fly through it') to finish. Prosecutor Ms. Moe confirms the government has no further questions at that stage.
DOJ-OGR-00020907.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.
DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.
DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00020900.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal hearing (likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial juror misconduct inquiry, given the 'M38TMAX1' code and content). A witness (a juror) is being questioned about why they did not disclose their history of sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire (specifically question 48) but subsequently discussed it in media interviews. The witness claims they were distracted when reading the questionnaire and only brought up the abuse to reporters to explain their reasoning during jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00020899.jpg
This document is a transcript (pages 19-20) from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), dated February 28, 2023. It records the questioning of a witness (likely a juror) regarding their completion of a 'thick' jury questionnaire. The witness admits to 'skimming' and 'flying through' questions based on 'if yes' prompts, stating they were distracted and that the process felt like it took hours.
DOJ-OGR-00020896.jpg
This document is a transcript of a voir dire or deposition from February 28, 2023, where an attorney questions a potential juror about an inaccurate answer on their questionnaire. The juror admits to mistakenly checking 'no' when asked if a family member had ever been accused of a crime, explaining that their stepbrother had been. The juror attributes the error to being distracted, unfocused due to a recent breakup, and skimming the form too quickly, calling it an 'inadvertent mistake' and 'one of the biggest mistakes' of their life.
DOJ-OGR-00020892.jpg
This document is a transcript page (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings, indicated by 'M38TMAX1') regarding 'Juror 50'. The Court grants Juror 50 'use immunity' following an assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges, protecting them from prosecution based on their testimony provided they do not commit perjury. The Court also explicitly instructs the juror not to reveal information regarding jury deliberations or thought processes during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which a speaker, likely the judge, explains their decision to reject a proposal from the defense regarding how to answer a jury question about 'Count Four'. The speaker argues for reminding the jury of the entire instruction, including the relevant New York penal law, rather than just pointing to specific language. The speaker also formally records that they have extended the jury's deliberation schedule by one hour to 6:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.
DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg
This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.
DOJ-OGR-00020825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically jury instructions) filed on February 28, 2023, as part of Case 22-1426 (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal). It details Instruction No. 18 and 19 regarding 'Count Four,' which charges transportation of a minor (under 17) in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity. The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a), specifically noting the requirement to prove Ms. Maxwell laid intent for the individual to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00019061.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief procedural exchange between the judge (THE COURT) and Ms. Comey about bringing the jury and a witness, identified as Rodgers, into the courtroom. After Ms. Comey agrees to the procedure, the judge gives the order to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00018991.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and government attorney Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the procedural issue of raising a new argument that was not addressed during a witness's examination, specifically in relation to the testimony of Mr. Alessi. The judge explains their position while affirming they will keep an open mind to future arguments from both sides before the court goes into recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018989.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the examination of a witness named Rodgers. The proceedings involve a discussion between the Court, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell regarding the redaction of a name ('Carolyn') and phone numbers from evidence. Mr. Everdell also coordinates the placement of folders for the jury ahead of cross-examination, and the parties agree to discuss an 'in limine instruction' after the lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00018987.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) during the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. Rodgers confirms that the initials 'JE' and 'GM' in a logbook refer to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, respectively. Following the dismissal of the jury for lunch, defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a procedural issue regarding the government's practice of referring to other flight passengers as 'and others' without naming them.
DOJ-OGR-00018975.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct testimony of a pilot named Rodgers. Rodgers describes the fleet of aircraft owned by his employer between 1991 and 2004, specifically listing a Hawker Siddeley 125, Gulfstream G2B, Cessna 421, and Boeing 727. The questioning focuses on the physical layout of the Gulfstream and Boeing aircraft, establishing that doors separating the cockpit from the passenger areas prevented the pilot from observing passenger activities.
DOJ-OGR-00018961.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Mrs. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding message pads containing messages for Mr. Epstein. Hesse confirms she took messages at the residence when Epstein was absent and defends the accuracy of the messages she personally wrote, while acknowledging she cannot vouch for messages written by others.
DOJ-OGR-00018947.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse by attorney Ms. Moe. During the examination, Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are admitted into evidence under seal by the judge, despite an objection from attorney Mr. Pagliuca being overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00018935.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. It captures a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admissibility of a 'spiral bound book' of message slips during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Pagliuca objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 803.6, arguing the witness lacks the knowledge to establish a business record foundation, while Moe counters that the authenticity of the book itself is not in dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018932.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe is seeking to admit three spiral-bound message books as evidence, arguing they have been properly authenticated and should be admitted despite a hearsay objection, citing that similar evidence was previously accepted in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018912.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal objection made by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, under Rule 404(b) during the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, counters that the testimony is "Direct evidence," prompting the judge to intervene.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity