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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A cross-examination during which Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiment... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place in court regarding the appropriateness of sending new legal instructions ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A courtroom discussion regarding the offering of evidence. Ms. Comey attempts to offer something ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A summation was given in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, where Ms. Menninger addressed the jury regar... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument took place regarding the proper procedure for presenting exhibits to a jury thro... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Legal proceeding | A court hearing where a judge is overruling objections from the defendant regarding information i... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Sentencing hearing | A judge details the calculation of a defendant's sentence under the 2003 Guidelines, including th... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-06-28 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing | Unknown | View |
| 2021-12-19 | Jury deliberation | The jury is instructed on how to conduct their deliberations in the criminal case against Ms. Max... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Jury instruction | The court provides introductory instructions to the jury following the conclusion of evidence and... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-06-15 | Sentencing hearing | Sentencing hearing for Tiffany Days in case 19 CR 619, United States of America v. Tiffany Days, ... | Court (via videoconference) | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Arraignment | An arraignment on the S1 superseding indictment is being conducted under special procedures due t... | Courthouse | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Court proceeding | A detention hearing where the government argued against granting bail to a defendant, citing her ... | Court | View |
| 2008-08-14 | N/A | Judge's order issued regarding the case. | Court | View |
| 0022-07-01 | N/A | Phone call where the Judge asked questions about jury consultants. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001919.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on December 10, 2020. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is arguing for his client to be released on bail, stating that preparing a defense while she is in custody during the COVID-19 crisis is 'not realistic'. He also refutes the government's characterization of his client, explicitly stating she is 'not Jeffrey Epstein' and is being unfairly portrayed.
DOJ-OGR-00021641.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge sentences Ms. Maxwell to 240 months (20 years) in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, noting her lack of remorse but following the Probation Department's recommendation. The total sentence is composed of concurrent sentences for three different counts.
DOJ-OGR-00021639.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing hearing. The judge discusses the difficult conditions at the MDC during the pandemic, acknowledging they were harsh for all inmates, and notes Maxwell's specific security risks as a high-profile sex offender. However, the judge explicitly rejects the defense's argument that Maxwell was singled out for uniquely harsh treatment compared to other inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00021638.jpg
This document is a page from a sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge is discussing sentencing factors, noting her age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, and the government's admission that she is not a continuing danger, while balancing this against her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity.' The text also references mitigation arguments regarding her difficult family history (overbearing father, death of brother) and her charitable works and tutoring of inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00021595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, for Case 22-1426. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, where the court confirms an offense level increase to 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00021585.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript (SA-409) from Case 22-1426, filed on 06/29/2023. It records a judge's ruling during a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's, given the 'sex crime' and 'minor' context and file codes). The judge explicitly finds the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions and overrules a defense objection regarding sentencing enhancements, stating that the clear text of the Guidelines overrides background commentary or legislative history.
DOJ-OGR-00021560.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, in which a judge is ruling on defense objections to specific paragraphs (79 and 81) of a report. The judge discusses Virginia's testimony regarding interactions at Epstein's properties, specifically noting that trial evidence disproved claims that Virginia was unaware of other victims. The judge overrules an objection regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages performed by individuals brought by a woman named Carolyn, concluding that Maxwell's recruitment of Virginia set the broader scheme in motion.
DOJ-OGR-00019068.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a criminal court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a cross-examination by Mr. Everdell, likely of Mr. Rodgers, concerning evidence labeled LV3A and LV3B, and photos depicting an unnamed individual. The Court and jury are involved in the process of reviewing this evidence, with specific instructions given regarding its handling and the non-disclosure of a person's name.
DOJ-OGR-00017207.jpg
This document contains jury instructions from a legal proceeding, clarifying what constitutes evidence and outlining strict rules for juror conduct during deliberations. The judge instructs the jury that only witness answers, exhibits, and stipulations are evidence, and prohibits them from communicating about the case or using electronic devices and social media for any related discussions.
DOJ-OGR-00017174.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the closing arguments (summation) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is instructing the jury on the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' emphasizing that the lack of evidence or missing witnesses should be considered when deciding if the government met its burden of proof. She explicitly states that if such doubt exists, it is the jury's duty to acquit Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017173.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court summation delivered by Ms. Menninger on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Menninger explains to the jury the concept of 'reasonable doubt,' stressing that the government bears the entire burden of proving every element of the charges. She instructs them that they must acquit Ms. Maxwell if the government fails to meet this high standard of proof for any part of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017172.jpg
This document is a transcript of a defense summation by Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues for Maxwell's acquittal by claiming a lack of concrete evidence, such as phone records, and emphasizing that mere presence at a location or knowledge of a plan without participation is insufficient for a conviction. She reminds the jury that suspicion is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that Maxwell is presumed innocent.
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a cross-examination. Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiments on memory, distinguishing them from other evidence related to Dr. Rocchio, while Mr. Pagliuca briefly interjects. The Court ultimately rules 'Overruled' on an unspecified objection or motion.
DOJ-OGR-00016468.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and government attorney Ms. Moe regarding the scheduling of witness list disclosures and related legal submissions. The parties agree on a timeline for actions on the following Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, with Mr. Everdell highlighting the witnesses' need for a prompt resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00013210.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is arguing to admit a prior document for 'impeachment by omission,' stating that the witness (Carolyn) filed a complaint and was interviewed by the FBI in 2008 regarding sexual abuse by Epstein and his employee Sarah Kellen, but notably failed to mention Ghislaine Maxwell at that time. Pagliuca argues this contradicts the government's current narrative which emphasizes Maxwell's role while downplaying Kellen's.
DOJ-OGR-00009092.jpg
This document is page 25 of 30 from a court filing (Document 613-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains a 'Closing Question' (Question 51) of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50. The juror marked 'No' in response to whether they wished for any answers to remain confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00009076.jpg
This document is page 9 of a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they have no feelings or opinions about evidence from law enforcement searches or the use of expert witnesses that would affect their impartiality. The juror also affirms their willingness and ability to follow the court's instruction to avoid all media and any discussion of the case outside the courtroom until their jury service is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00017266.jpg
This document is page 245 of a court transcript (Jury Charge) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains specific legal instructions from the judge to the jury regarding how to handle redacted evidence, the definition and weight of 'Stipulations' (Instruction No. 57), and the prohibition against the jury considering potential punishment during deliberations (Instruction No. 58).
DOJ-OGR-00013690.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony focuses on a journal entry the witness wrote after a trip to New York, confirming she visited Jeffrey Epstein's home, attended 'Phantom of the Opera' (which she described as the best night of the trip), went cross-country skiing, and met a woman named Maria's boyfriend.
DOJ-OGR-00013555.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural argument between legal counsel and the judge. The discussion centers on the appropriate method for presenting exhibits to a jury, specifically concerning a witness, Mr. Buscemi, whose testimony would be limited to simply identifying the items. An attorney, Ms. Moe, defends her proposed streamlined approach against objections that it is improper and prevents substantive cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00010766.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 29, 2022. Juror ID 2 affirms that their impartiality would not be affected by evidence from law enforcement searches or testimony from expert witnesses. The juror also confirms their willingness and ability to follow instructions to avoid all media and outside discussion of the case until their jury service is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00010047.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5764) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony centers on the preparation of a 'July 21st letter' and whether the witness met with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein to prepare for the current hearing. Brune denies meeting for hearing preparation but acknowledges they worked closely to reconstruct events for the letter, specifically referencing an email with the text 'Jesus, I do think that it's her'.
DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony covers procedural timeline issues, specifically regarding jury deliberations that lasted eight days and whether the legal team could have raised issues regarding a 'suspended attorney' with the Court prior to the verdict. It references a conversation between Ms. Trzaskoma, Barry Berke, and Paul Schoeman.
DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00004749.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 15, 2021, for defendant Tiffany Days in the case United States of America v. Tiffany Days. The hearing, conducted via videoconference, begins with appearances from the government prosecutor, Nicholas Chiuchiolo, and defense counsel, Xavier R. Donaldson. The judge confirms the case details and outlines the charge to which Ms. Days has pleaded guilty—conspiracy to distribute narcotics—and begins to discuss the statutory minimum sentence.
Victim Impact Statement
Decried emotional trauma and manipulation by McDaniel.
Character reference
Describes Maxwell tutoring other inmates while incarcerated.
Character references
Described Maxwell as attentive, loving, loyal, and generous.
Sentencing arguments
The judge invites Mr. Everdell to make additional arguments beyond his written submissions regarding sentencing.
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.
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.
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