| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-21 | N/A | Telephone Conference held by Judge Nathan (Subject line implies 'Tomorrow' relative to 21st, but ... | Telephone Conference | View |
| 2021-10-21 | N/A | Telephone conference to discuss jury selection matters | Telephone Conference (Publi... | View |
| 2021-10-21 | Legal communication | Members of the SDNY press corps sent an email to Judge Nathan to formally state their opposition ... | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2021-10-19 | N/A | Filing of Motions in Limine for U.S. v. Maxwell | NYSD (via email) | View |
| 2021-10-18 | N/A | Filing of 13 Motions in Limine by the defense in U.S. v. Maxwell. | New York Southern District ... | View |
| 2021-10-18 | N/A | Defense team files 13 motions in limine in U.S. v. Maxwell. | NYSD Court | View |
| 2021-10-15 | N/A | Judge Nathan ordered USANYS to respond to a defense letter by 5 PM. | New York (SDNY) | View |
| 2021-10-15 | N/A | Judge Nathan orders US Government to respond to Sternheim letter by 5 PM. | Court | View |
| 2021-10-15 | N/A | Judge Nathan ordered USANYS to respond to the defense letter by 5 PM. | Court | View |
| 2021-10-15 | N/A | Judge Nathan issued an endorsement regarding legal mail delays for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| 2021-10-15 | N/A | Deadline for government response to Judge Nathan. | New York | View |
| 2021-09-03 | N/A | Judge Nathan's Order (Dkt. No. 335) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-09-03 | N/A | Order issued by Judge Nathan (Dkt. No. 335) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-08-13 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied all of Maxwell's supplemental motions and an ex parte motion for Rule 17 subp... | Court | View |
| 2021-07-30 | N/A | Order regarding Local Rule 23.1 issued | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-07-30 | N/A | Order Regarding Local Rule 23.1 issued (inferred from attachment filename). | SDNY | View |
| 2021-07-12 | N/A | Scheduled first day of trial | United States District Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Denial of Maxwell's request to alter security measures. | District Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Judge Nathan's bail determinations and denial of Maxwell's application for pretrial release. | District Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's bail applications. | District Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied bail or temporary pretrial release to Maxwell. | Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Appellate Court affirmed Judge Nathan's orders regarding bail. | Court | View |
| 2021-05-27 | N/A | Judge Nathan denied bail and temporary pretrial release to Maxwell. | Court | View |
| 2021-05-22 | N/A | Government submission of opposition memorandum to defense's supplemental pretrial motions. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2021-05-17 | N/A | Memo Endorsement granting government redaction and sealing requests. | Court | 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.
Questioning during jury selection process.
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
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.
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion denying Maxwell's bail application.
Multiple rounds of briefing and lengthy argument regarding Maxwell's bail status.
Denial of application (Ex. H)
Describing the psychological impact of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
Statement describing the trauma of the trial, Maxwell's lack of remorse, and a request for an appropriate prison 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.
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.
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.
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