Judge Nathan
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
15
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
14
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Business associate |
11
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
Assistant United States Attorney
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Judge Preska
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Professional judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Litigant judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial oversight |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Litigant judge |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unknown author
|
Juror judge inferred |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pete Brush
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan found three times that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight and th... | district court | View |
| N/A | Legal action | Judge Nathan refused to modify a criminal protective order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document discusses preserving Ms. Maxwell's right to litigate an issue concerning the governm... | Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The underlying legal trial where Juror 50 served. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | Jury selection process where Judge Nathan asked follow-up questions regarding jurors' personal ex... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Juror 50's credibility was assessed, from which statements are being drawn for th... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberations | The jury was deliberating on the charges against Maxwell, during which they sent a note to the ju... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan declined to modify a protective order, which is described as a clear abuse of her di... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | An opening statement is being given in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's application for bail. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan concluded that Maxwell presented a risk of flight and that her proposed bail package... | Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | Maxwell was given a 240-month sentence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Maxwell, during which the Government made its summation and Judge Nathan gave jury i... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where evidence was presented and testimony was given regarding the roles of Maxwell and K... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | Maxwell argues that Judge Nathan should have implied bias in Juror 50 due to similarities between... | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court order was issued by Judge Nathan on January 5th. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A discussion during a trial regarding a request by the defendant, Maxwell, for a specific jury in... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Judicial finding | Judge Nathan determined that the government's evidence against Ms. Maxwell appears strong and tha... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell appealed Judge Nathan's latter two bail decisions and moved for pretrial release pending ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan's finding that Maxwell is a substantial flight risk and that no bail conditions woul... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | Judge Nathan granted the Government's motion to dismiss the perjury counts. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's appeal regarding the unsealing of discovery materials from a criminal case for use in c... | Second Circuit | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal of Judge Nathan's order which refused to modify a protective order. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an Order declining to modify the Protective Order | District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010670.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated June 22, 2022, from attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Nathan regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter submits the victim impact statement of Virginia Giuffre, who details being trafficked and abused by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein from the age of 16. Giuffre's statement directly blames Maxwell for spotting her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and introducing her to Epstein, thereby 'opening the door to hell'.
DOJ-OGR-00010668.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 674) from June 2022, containing a victim impact statement addressed to the court. The anonymous author, a 45-year-old survivor with 19 years of sobriety, details the long-term psychological effects of Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse, including panic attacks and dissociation. The author expresses gratitude to the judge, jury, and prosecutors following their testimony in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010666.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Document 674) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 24, 2022. It contains a victim impact statement submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Nathan. The statement describes the professional and emotional toll of the trial on the victim, criticizes Maxwell's lack of remorse and refusal to admit guilt, and urges the judge to consider the ongoing suffering of the victims during sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00010607.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 672) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated June 24, 2022. It is a Victim Impact Statement written by a 45-year-old woman who testified at the trial, detailing the long-term psychological effects of the abuse she suffered, including substance use disorder and PTSD. The author expresses gratitude to the court, the prosecutors, the jury, and Judge Nathan for the fair execution of the trial and the opportunity to seek justice.
DOJ-OGR-00010604.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 672) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. It contains a victim impact statement (likely from a testifying witness) describing the 'retraumatization' caused by the trial process, cross-examination, and Maxwell's refusal to admit guilt. The author urges Judge Nathan to consider the ongoing suffering of the victims and their families when determining Maxwell's prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00010414.jpg
This document is a letter from the United States Attorney to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter concerns the government's motion for the exclusion of time for Counts Seven and Eight under the Speedy Trial Act until June 28, 2022, the scheduled date of sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00020380.jpg
This legal document from May 27, 2021, argues that a renewed motion for Ghislaine Maxwell's release should be denied. It supports Judge Nathan's prior ruling that Maxwell is a flight risk and asserts that no new "compelling" reason has been presented to overturn the decision. The document also details Maxwell's extensive access to legal discovery materials and communication with her attorneys while in custody at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00014680.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Judge Nathan and counsel (Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a scheduling note to be sent to the deliberating jury about December 23rd. Subsequently, the jury sends a note requesting testimony transcripts for witnesses identified as Jane, Wong, and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00014584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the final sentences of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, urging the jury to find the defendant guilty of sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions (The Charge), specifically starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014565.jpg
This document is a transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey's) rebuttal in a criminal trial, likely against Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Comey argues that the jury should rely on the powerful and consistent testimony of multiple victims, as sexual abuse crimes rarely produce documentary evidence. She highlights that three separate victims gave similar accounts of the defendant touching their breasts and using massage as a prelude to sexual abuse, which serves as strong corroboration of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014564.jpg
This document is a page from a prosecutor's (Ms. Comey) rebuttal in a criminal trial, filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that the defendant was knowingly complicit in a sexual abuse scheme, citing a list of masseuses, a Palm Beach house, and a $30 million payment characterized as 'we-molested-kids-together money'. The prosecutor urges the jury to focus on the powerful testimony of victims like Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie, and dismisses the defense's arguments about missing evidence as a distraction.
DOJ-OGR-00014562.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the beginning of the government's rebuttal argument delivered by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refocuses the jury on Maxwell's specific alleged crimes, mentioning victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie by name, and argues that the defense is attempting to distract from the evidence presented by her colleague, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00014550.jpg
This document is a transcript of a closing argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Menninger argues for Maxwell's acquittal on 'Count Six', which relates to an accuser named Carolyn, by attacking Carolyn's credibility and claiming she never traveled to New York as alleged. The attorney also distances Maxwell from any involvement in the travel of another individual, Annie Farmer, to undermine the government's broader conspiracy theory involving Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020379.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing (Case 21-58) responding to Ghislaine Maxwell's complaints regarding her incarceration conditions at the MDC. The text refutes Maxwell's claims of sewage flooding by clarifying that the cited precedent (Tiffany Days) occurred at the MCC, not the MDC. Additionally, it counters her claim of 'solitary confinement' by detailing her 13-hour daily access to a day room equipped with computers, a phone, and a TV, while noting she requires protective custody for her safety.
DOJ-OGR-00020377.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to an appeal by Maxwell regarding her pretrial confinement conditions. The Government argues that Maxwell's complaints about disruptive nighttime flashlight checks are unsubstantiated and do not demonstrably interfere with her trial preparation. The document also refutes Maxwell's accusations of misrepresentation, clarifying a statement made by Government counsel and explaining an acknowledged inaccuracy in information received from the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00020375.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court order denying a renewed motion by an individual named Maxwell for temporary release from confinement. The court relies on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided a compelling reason, such as new evidence or a change in law, to justify reversing its prior decision. The court also dismisses Maxwell's arguments concerning a recent letter briefing and a written order by Judge Nathan, affirming the previous finding that Maxwell is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00020374.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a 'renewed motion' from a defendant named Maxwell is meritless. It cites legal precedents (United States v. Hochevar, Stack v. Boyle) and procedural rules to assert that the motion is not properly before the court. The document further states that a lower court judge, Judge Nathan, did not err in previously finding three times that Maxwell is a flight risk and denying bail.
DOJ-OGR-00020373.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) discusses the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that MDC's nighttime security protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation and notes procedural errors in Maxwell's filing of a 'renewed motion' rather than a new appeal or proper motion in District Court. It cites Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding the untimeliness of the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00020370.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's motion should be denied. It details Judge Nathan's previous findings that MDC's security protocols—specifically regarding night monitoring and eye coverings—do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation. The document affirms that previous denials of bail and release have been upheld.
DOJ-OGR-00020369.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). It details the Government's response regarding Maxwell's request for an eye mask and a dispute over nighttime flashlight checks. Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request to modify the monitoring schedule on May 14, 2021, noting that Maxwell's claims were unsupported by an affidavit and that flashlight checks are standard procedure for all inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00020368.jpg
This document page, part of a legal filing from May 2021, details the Government's response to Judge Nathan regarding 'flashlight surveillance' of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. It explains that while general population inmates are checked hourly and SHU inmates every 30 minutes, Maxwell is checked every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule' and 'heightened safety and security concerns,' despite not being on suicide watch.
DOJ-OGR-00020367.jpg
This legal document outlines the procedural history of a case involving a defendant named Maxwell. After Maxwell appealed two of Judge Nathan's bail decisions and was denied pretrial release on April 27, 2021, she did not file a renewed motion. Instead, on April 29, 2021, she submitted a letter to Judge Nathan requesting the court to order the MDC to stop or justify the 15-minute light surveillance that was disrupting her sleep.
DOJ-OGR-00020366.jpg
This legal document details the court's denial of a bail application filed by the defendant, Maxwell, on February 23, 2021. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's arguments about her confinement conditions unpersuasive and reiterated that her detention was necessary due to her being a flight risk, citing her substantial international ties, financial resources, and a "lack of candor regarding her assets" at the time of her arrest. The judge concluded that even a substantial bail package could not reasonably assure Maxwell's future appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00020362.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, is a court filing outlining the allegations against Maxwell. It details her alleged role as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, including identifying, enticing, and grooming victims. The document also references a Superseding Indictment that expanded the charges and the conspiracy timeline to 2004, and notes that Maxwell lied under oath in a civil deposition to conceal her crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00020361.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Government legal filing dated May 27, 2021, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed attempts for bail. It outlines the procedural history, noting that Judge Nathan previously denied bail twice and that the appellate court affirmed these denials on April 27, 2021. The document states that Maxwell's trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021, and begins a Statement of Facts regarding her indictment.
Legal Question
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
Denial of Bail
Denial of application (Ex. H)
Justification of procedures
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Denial of Bail Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Nighttime security checks
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
Jury Selection Questioning
Questioning during jury selection process.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the long-lasting effects of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein, specifically the loss of trust in herself.
Follow-up questions
Questions posed to jurors who answered affirmatively to questions 25, 48, or 49.
Denial of bail application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion denying Maxwell's bail application.
Bail/Detention arguments
Multiple rounds of briefing and lengthy argument regarding Maxwell's bail status.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Denial of Bail Application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the psychological impact of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
Victim Impact Statement regarding Ghislaine Maxwell sente...
Statement describing the trauma of the trial, Maxwell's lack of remorse, and a request for an appropriate prison sentence.
Sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell
Victim impact statement urging the judge to consider the lack of remorse, the trauma of the trial, and the ongoing suffering of victims when determining the sentence.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from Virginia Giuffre's counsel submitting Giuffre's victim impact statement for Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. The letter requests that the statement be read into the record because Giuffre is unable to attend in person due to a medical issue.
Jury Selection Voir Dire
Judge Nathan welcomes Juror No. 50, explains the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell, and issues instructions regarding avoiding media coverage.
Grounds for a new trial
Defense Counsel sent a letter (ECF #569) to Judge Nathan claiming 'incontrovertible grounds for a new trial' based on Juror 50's interviews and information filed under seal.
Opportunity to be heard
Judge Nathan issued an order giving Juror 50 the opportunity to submit a brief by January 26, 2022, if he wishes to be heard on the issue of an inquiry.
Court Order
Order directing an inquiry into Juror 50.
Appropriateness of an inquiry
Invited Juror 50 to address the inquiry into his conduct and the effect of his personal history on deliberations.
Appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50
Order addressing the appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct and truthfulness.
Question regarding Count Four in the US v. Maxwell case
The author of the note asks Judge Nathan for clarification on Count Four, specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if they aided in transporting 'Jane' when the intent for sexual activity was on Jane's part.
Response of David Oscar Markus in United States v. Maxwel...
Markus submitting a responsive letter to the court via email because he lacks filing privileges in SDNY. He requests it be filed on the public docket.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity