| 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 filing | At Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan seeking modification o... | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell temporary release, finding her to be a flight risk. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Maxwell, where Jane testified, defense counsel raised questions to Judge Nathan, and... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Appeal of Judge Nathan's order. | this Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where testimony was heard from Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Judge Nathan examined Juror 50 in detail about his experiences and ability to be ... | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial in a detailed written opinion. | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Nathan issued an Order prohibiting Maxwell from using certain criminal discovery materials ... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell filed a motion to modify the Protective Order, which was denied by Judge Nathan. | The Court | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | Judge Nathan imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment on Maxwell, plus fi... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A rebuttal argument being made by the prosecution (Ms. Comey) to the jury in a criminal trial. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court order | The district court, via Judge Nathan, denied Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order. | district court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Post-conviction bail proceedings. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal finding | Judge Nathan finding, three times, that the Government established Maxwell is a risk of flight an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Judicial ruling | Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but stated she would reevaluate if Judge Nath... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell addressing an order by Judge Nathan declining to modify a criminal prote... | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A victim impact statement being delivered to a judge regarding the sentencing of Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Sentencing hearing | A court proceeding for the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell, where her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, presents... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Filing date of the court document (Sentencing submission or transcript). | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Summation being delivered in court by Ms. Menninger | Courtroom (contextual) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Summation by Ms. Menninger in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Ms. Menninger delivers a summation (closing argument) in a criminal trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A summation by Ms. Moe in the trial of Maxwell, arguing for her guilt based on her complicity wit... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
This document is an excerpt from a court summation by Ms. Menninger on August 10, 2022. It discusses the burden of proof, the importance of lack of evidence, and argues that the jury should find the defendant not guilty. The summation claims that accusers initially focused on Jeffrey Epstein, later adding Ghislaine Maxwell to their stories, and that accusers sought legal counsel and engaged with the FBI, potentially motivated by financial gain.
This document is a page from the prosecution's summation in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Prosecutor Ms. Moe outlines the evidence for 'Count Five' (sex trafficking conspiracy spanning 2000-2004), detailing how Maxwell recruited Virginia Roberts at Mar-a-Lago and facilitated Carolyn's sexual abuse in Palm Beach and New York. The prosecutor emphasizes the legal standard for conspiracy, noting that the jury only needs to find that the agreement existed for 'one moment' and that an overt act was taken by either Maxwell or Epstein.
This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Moe in the case against Maxwell. The summation outlines three conspiracy counts, alleging that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell conspired with Epstein to commit crimes against victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie. Ms. Moe argues that Maxwell groomed Carolyn and Annie as part of an agreement to provide Epstein with underage girls for abuse, which constitutes the conspiracy.
This document is an email dated October 21, 2021, from reporter Pete Brush of Law360 to Judge Nathan of the Southern District of New York. On behalf of a coalition of reporters from various news outlets, Brush expresses support for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's arguments against secret jury selection and vetting in the upcoming trial of USA v. Maxwell. The email underscores the press corps' interest in maintaining transparency in the judicial process.
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the court. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
This document is a transcript of an opening statement, likely from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The attorney argues that the four female accusers, who are using pseudonyms, are unreliable witnesses motivated by money ("a payday"). She claims their stories have changed over time, were only told after Epstein's death, and are based on flawed, contaminated memories, which will be discussed in expert testimony.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on July 22, 2022. It features a victim impact statement from a woman, now a psychologist, who describes her silence for two decades due to shame and fear of professional ruin. She addresses Judge Nathan directly, urging her to consider the ongoing suffering of victims and the systemic effects of the crimes when sentencing Ghislaine Maxwell.
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
Denial of application (Ex. H)
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
Questioning during jury selection process.
Describing the long-lasting effects of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein, specifically the loss of trust in herself.
Questions posed to jurors who answered affirmatively to questions 25, 48, or 49.
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion denying Maxwell's bail application.
Multiple rounds of briefing and lengthy argument regarding Maxwell's bail status.
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Describing the psychological impact of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
Statement describing the trauma of the trial, Maxwell's lack of remorse, and a request for an appropriate prison sentence.
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.
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.
Judge Nathan welcomes Juror No. 50, explains the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell, and issues instructions regarding avoiding media coverage.
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.
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.
Order directing an inquiry into Juror 50.
Invited Juror 50 to address the inquiry into his conduct and the effect of his personal history on deliberations.
Order addressing the appropriateness of an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct and truthfulness.
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.
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