the Judge
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Professional judicial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed speaker
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
lawyers for the parties
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Instructional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Cohen
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where the judge overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing guidelines ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The legal proceeding for which the juror is being considered. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of second bail application | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The process of selecting jurors for the trial, which the respondent is currently undergoing. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hypothetical hearing is discussed, with opinions on whether it should be held and whether victi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss the schedule for jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Legal Ruling | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | Trial | A legal proceeding where testimony is given, evidence is admitted, and rulings are made. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Side bar conferences | Discussions between the judge and counsel that the jury is instructed not to concern themselves w... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) in which this jury instruction was filed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing ruling where the judge determines Virginia Roberts and Melissa are victims for... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The legal proceeding for which the juror is being selected. The juror is instructed not to discus... | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The process of selecting a juror for a trial, which this questionnaire is a part of. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-07 | Phone call | A telephone call where a judge was trying to identify people involved in a process. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | N/A | Court ruling on objections to Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding sentencing guidelines in Case 22-1426. The court confirmed an i... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Sentencing | A judge sentences Ms. Maxwell to 240 months (20 years) of imprisonment and five years of supervis... | The Court | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding sentencing calculations, specifically discussing enhancements for 'le... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court ruling on objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to discuss and set deadlines for the disclosure of a witness list and subseque... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A judge confirms with two parties, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, that there are no preliminary matt... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A summation (closing argument) was delivered by Ms. Menninger to a jury regarding the government'... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where attorneys argue about the scope of a witness's upcoming testimony. | Court | View |
EFTA00037956.pdf
An email sent on June 28, 2020, between redacted parties discussing the urgent review of an affidavit titled 'Maxwell_GPS_Combo_v2.docx'. The sender intends to submit the document to a judge later that evening to allow extra review time. The document likely pertains to legal proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell, possibly related to bail or location monitoring given the date and 'GPS' reference.
EFTA00036063.pdf
This document is a redacted email dated August 10, 2019, the day Jeffrey Epstein died. The subject is 'Fwd: Draft Notification' and the body text states 'Attached is a draft for the Judge,' likely referring to the official notification of death to the presiding judge. The sender and recipient identities are redacted.
EFTA00014067.pdf
Email correspondence from August 15, 2008, between attorney Brad Edwards and the US Attorney's Office (USAFLS). They are negotiating the terms of a protective order required to disclose the non-prosecution agreement to Edwards' clients, identified as Jane Does 1 and 2. Edwards objects to a specific clause requiring his clients to formally acknowledge receipt, arguing it causes unnecessary delay.
DOJ-OGR-00018349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge is ruling to exclude photographic evidence of a stuffed tiger and dog found in Epstein's New York apartment in 2019, deeming them irrelevant and prejudicial because they do not match the specific 'artwork of animals' described by the witness 'Jane' from years prior. However, the judge notes anticipation that 'schoolgirl outfits' found in the same apartment in 2019 will likely be introduced.
DOJ-OGR-00017702.jpg
This court transcript excerpt, filed on August 10, 2022, captures the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on discrediting her timeline of events, specifically a first meeting she previously claimed occurred in September 2019. Jane admits her timeline was wrong but states she does not recall repeating the story on later dates in December 2019 and February 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00017635.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who confirms the authenticity of exhibits including her signature, photographs taken before she was 14, and a letter of recommendation. The transcript also captures a procedural exchange between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Menninger, regarding a binder of government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00014842.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The presiding judge rejects Maxwell's complaints about her treatment at the MDC, noting she had ample resources for legal preparation. The judge criticizes Maxwell for a pattern of dishonesty regarding finances and deflection of blame, noting that while she acknowledged the victims' suffering, she failed to accept personal responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and a defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, during a sentencing hearing. The judge summarizes the probation department's sentencing recommendation and invites Mr. Everdell to present his arguments. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which version of the sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) applies, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00014760.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 22, 2022. The judge is overruling objections made by the defendant regarding the credibility of a witness named Carolyn. The court accepts as fact that Carolyn was introduced to Epstein by Virginia at age 14, visited Epstein's Palm Beach residence over 100 times, and performed sexualized massages until 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00008618.jpg
This document is page 80 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 58 for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge instructs the jurors that they must not consider potential punishment when determining guilt, emphasizing that sentencing is the sole responsibility of the judge. The instruction clarifies the jury's role is strictly to weigh evidence regarding whether the Government has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00008612.jpg
This document is Page 74 of a court filing (Jury Instruction No. 52) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. The judge instructs the jury that evidence seized by law enforcement was obtained lawfully and properly admitted. The jury is directed to disregard any personal opinions about the search methods and to give the evidence full consideration in determining the defendant's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008603.jpg
This document is page 65 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions regarding the evaluation of witness credibility, specifically highlighting how to weigh the testimony of a witness with a prior felony conviction (highlighted text). It also instructs the jury on the use of pseudonyms or first names to protect the privacy of certain witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008601.jpg
This document is page 63 (internal page 62) of a court filing dated December 18, 2021, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains specific jury instructions regarding the burden of proof and 'guilt by association,' explicitly instructing the jury that they cannot convict Maxwell solely based on her association with other criminals or her knowledge of their wrongdoing.
DOJ-OGR-00008587.jpg
This document is page 49 of a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, containing Jury Instruction No. 35 for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the legal standards for 'Membership in the Conspiracy' (Counts One, Three, and Five), defining the terms 'knowingly' and 'willfully' and establishing the Government's burden of proof regarding Maxwell's intent and participation.
DOJ-OGR-00008516.jpg
This document is page 60 of court filing 562 (Jury Instructions) from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' explaining to the jury how to logically deduce facts from evidence versus guessing. Crucially, it instructs the jury that they cannot infer Maxwell's guilt based solely on her presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008463.jpg
This page contains Jury Instruction No. 2 ('Role of the Jury') filed on December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text instructs the jury that they are the sole judges of facts and credibility, and clarifies that statements made by lawyers or rulings made by the judge do not constitute evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008462.jpg
This document is a page of introductory jury instructions from a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The judge explicitly outlines the jury's duty to accept the law exactly as the court presents it, setting aside personal opinions or conflicting legal arguments from attorneys. The jury is instructed to consider all instructions together and is permitted to take a copy of them into the jury room for deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00001383.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell against the Government's handling of her abuse allegations. The defense claims the Government's conclusion that the abuse was 'unfounded' is a 'self-serving proclamation' based on a Bureau of Prisons video review that neither the prosecutors, court, nor defense have seen. The document demands the video be produced for review and accuses the Government of hypocrisy and a desire to humiliate Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where the judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety measures, referencing a national emergency and ensuring public trial rights are upheld. The judge then transitions to the arraignment, confirming with counsel Ms. Moe that it is for an S1 superseding indictment and asking for an explanation of the changes from the original indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00000642.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an unidentified speaker critiques an article from the New York Law Journal. The speaker refutes the opinions of two professors who argued against holding a public hearing and allowing victims to speak in the Jeffrey Epstein case, calling their suggestions 'incredulous' and incorrect as a matter of law.
DOJ-OGR-00020938.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, identified as being completed by Juror 50. The document was filed on March 9, 2022. In response to the final question, the juror indicated that they do not wish for any of their answers to be kept confidential from the Judge, counsel, or the Defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00018729.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a courtroom exchange where an attorney, Ms. Comey, attempts to introduce evidence, leading to confusion and a formal objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, who then requests to approach the bench.
DOJ-OGR-00018612.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The primary issue is the scope of testimony for an upcoming witness, Mr. Flatley, concerning whether a file's 'created date' is the same as its 'modified date' on a CD, and whether this constitutes factual testimony or requires an expert opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00016184.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In the excerpt, the judge confirms with Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no preliminary issues to address before the jury enters. The court then prepares to bring in the jury for Ms. Comey's witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016177.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement, likely from a defense attorney named Ms. Sternheim. She argues that an accuser, Carolyn, fabricated her story about Ghislaine's involvement, noting that Carolyn's initial lawsuits and FBI interview only mentioned Epstein and his assistant, Sarah Kellen. The attorney suggests that Carolyn's story changed to include Ghislaine only after Epstein's death, motivated by a multi-million dollar payment from a victim's fund.
Victim Impact Statement
Decried emotional trauma and manipulation by McDaniel.
Character references
Described Maxwell as attentive, loving, loyal, and generous.
Character reference
Describes Maxwell tutoring other inmates while incarcerated.
Sentencing arguments
The judge invites Mr. Everdell to make additional arguments beyond his written submissions regarding sentencing.
Objection/clarification on sentencing calculation
Ms. Moe responds to the judge by pointing out that under guideline 3D1.4, 5 units should add 4 levels to the offense score, not 5 as the judge had stated.
Sentencing guideline calculation and call for new objections
The judge explains the calculation of the defendant's total offense level to be 37 and the corresponding sentencing ranges for imprisonment, fines, and supervised release, then asks for any new objections.
Consensus reached
The jurors were about to send a note to the judge saying they had reached consensus on all counts just as they received her note.
Verdict deadline
The judge sent a note on Wednesday 29 December informing the jurors that if they had not reached a verdict, she would recall them the following day.
Instruction No. 58: Punishment Not to be Considered by th...
The judge instructs the jury that they must not consider potential punishment for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, during their deliberations. Their sole function is to weigh the evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jury consultants and voir dire process
Judge asked questions related to the jury consultants in the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity