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 | N/A | Judge Nathan's first decision denying pretrial motions, with a discussion of MV-3 starting on pag... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell intends to argue violation of Martindell before Judge Nathan. | Criminal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (likely for Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of temporary release | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of motions to dismiss | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan declined to modify protective order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's second bail application. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan refused to modify the protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan directed the Government to confer with MDC legal counsel regarding surveillance just... | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan's ruling on bail/release conditions. | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail Hearings/Decisions | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Maxwell presented a motion to Judge Nathan to modify a Protective Order in her criminal case. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell's arguments to modify a protective order failed to establish good... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan entered a 'challenged Order' denying Maxwell's request to use criminal discovery mat... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's appeal of Judge Nathan's Order in a criminal case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | A hearing was conducted by Judge Nathan to inquire into errors made by Juror 50 on a jury questio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | A potential future suppression motion that Maxwell could make before Judge Nathan. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge Nathan denied motion to modify criminal protective order. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for temporary release after analyzing her arguments and pro... | The District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's trial, where a jury's potential bias due to disclosure of civil case material is discus... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where powerful testimony was heard from victims. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for bail after considering multiple written submissions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Judge Nathan issued a written order finding Maxwell poses a flight risk and that temporary releas... | District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001337.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision to deny temporary release to the defendant, Maxwell, was not a clear error or abuse of discretion. The document states that the judge thoroughly reviewed Maxwell's arguments, including comparisons to other cases, but found significant differences that justified continued detention. It also asserts that the judge has ensured Maxwell has adequate access to her counsel to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001336.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision-making was proper and based on substantial evidence provided by the Government. It refutes arguments from the defendant, Maxwell, particularly her claim that she was not hiding from law enforcement, citing the judge's finding that Maxwell demonstrated an "extraordinary capacity to evade detection."
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed by the Government on April 12, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-770). The text argues against Maxwell's appeal regarding her bail denial, asserting that she poses a flight risk due to foreign ties and wealth, and defending the lower court's use of 'proffers' (evidence summaries) rather than full evidentiary hearings for bail determinations, citing Second Circuit precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00001334.jpg
This document represents page 17 of a legal brief filed on April 12, 2021, arguing against the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not err in denying bail, citing Maxwell as a flight risk and noting the strength of the Government's evidence, which includes multiple victims and documentary corroboration. It discusses legal standards for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) and cites relevant case law.
DOJ-OGR-00001332.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely an appellate brief by the government) dated April 12, 2021. It argues that Judge Nathan properly denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motions for bail and temporary release because she is a flight risk. The text outlines the applicable law regarding pretrial detention and the statutory presumption against release for offenses involving minor victims.
DOJ-OGR-00001329.jpg
This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasons for denying Ghislaine Maxwell's previous bail requests, citing her significant wealth as a flight risk and her "extraordinary capacity to evade detection." The judge was also unpersuaded by arguments that Maxwell's confinement conditions were overly onerous. The document concludes by noting that on February 23, 2021, Maxwell filed a third bail application, proposing to renounce her French and British citizenship as a new condition.
DOJ-OGR-00001328.jpg
This legal document excerpt details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to the defendant, Maxwell. The judge found a significant discrepancy between the $3.5 million in assets Maxwell declared in July 2020 and a later estimate of her and her spouse's net worth at $22.5 million. This, along with an insufficient bail proposal, led the judge to conclude Maxwell demonstrated a lack of candor and remained a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001327.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 12, 2021. It details Judge Nathan's findings that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her extraordinary financial resources, multiple foreign citizenships, and lack of employment. The text notes that despite letters of support and offers to waive extradition rights, the court found the risk of flight fundamentally unchanged and the case against her strong.
DOJ-OGR-00001324.jpg
This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to Maxwell. The judge found that the government had proven Maxwell is a substantial flight risk, citing her failure to provide her whereabouts, her significant and opaque financial resources, and her demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets. Consequently, Judge Nathan concluded that even the most restrictive release conditions would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001323.jpg
This legal document, page 6 of a filing from April 12, 2021, summarizes Judge Nathan's findings that defendant Ms. Maxwell is a significant flight risk. The judge's determination is based on the strength of the government's evidence, Maxwell's substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), significant financial resources, and a lack of strong ties to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00001322.jpg
This legal document describes the initial bail hearing for a defendant named Maxwell, which took place on July 14, 2020. During the hearing, Judge Nathan heard arguments and received statements from victims, including Annie Farmer, who accused Maxwell of grooming and abuse. Based on the testimony and risk of flight, Judge Nathan ordered Maxwell to be detained.
DOJ-OGR-00001320.jpg
This legal document, dated April 12, 2021, is a page from a 'Statement of Facts' in the case against Maxwell. It outlines the indictment charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, detailing her alleged methods of grooming victims. The document also notes that a superseding indictment expanded the charges and timeframe to 2004, and mentions that Judge Nathan had previously denied Maxwell's bail applications, with her trial scheduled for July 12, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001006.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, for a hearing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. The transcript records the appearances of the legal counsel for both the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the U.S. government. The government's counsel also requests permission for staff from the U.S. Attorney's office to be dialed into the hearing due to technical issues with an overflow line from Connecticut.
DOJ-OGR-00020864.jpg
This document is a handwritten note dated December 27, 2021, from an unknown individual (likely a juror) to Judge Nathan during the 'US v. Maxwell' trial. The author seeks clarification on Count Four, asking if the defendant can be found guilty for aiding in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico if the intent to engage in sexual activity was on Jane's part, not the defendant's. The note highlights a point of confusion regarding the legal elements required for a conviction on that specific charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020472.jpg
This document is a page from the docket of the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, showing entries from April 2022. It details the denial of a motion for a new trial involving Juror 50, scheduling orders for sentencing, and an Opinion & Order denying a Rule 29 motion while granting a motion regarding multiplicitous counts. The document establishes that judgment of conviction will be entered on Counts Three, Four, and Six.
DOJ-OGR-00016160.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the four accusers, using pseudonyms, have fabricated or altered their stories decades after the alleged events, particularly after Epstein's death, in order to get a "payday." She urges the jury to focus on the themes of memory, manipulation, and money, and states that expert testimony will be presented to show how memory is unreliable and can be contaminated over time.
DOJ-OGR-00016151.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the transition from the prosecution's opening statement to the defense's, delivered by Ms. Sternheim. Ms. Sternheim begins her defense by arguing that Maxwell is being unfairly scapegoated for the actions of Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing that while Epstein's conduct is central to the case, Maxwell is a separate individual who should not be conflated with him.
DOJ-OGR-00016147.jpg
This document is page 37 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as 'the defendant'), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz outlines the prosecution's opening argument, describing a 'pyramid scheme of abuse' where the defendant recruited and groomed minors for Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of massage appointments. The text details specific charges, including transporting minors under age 17 across state lines and sex trafficking of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00002019.jpg
This is a heavily redacted letter dated November 19, 2020, from an unknown individual to Judge Nathan in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. The author attests to Maxwell's good character, stating the person described in the criminal charges is not the person they know and that they have never witnessed inappropriate behavior from her. The letter also references the media attention following the arrest and death of Jeffrey Epstein in the summer of 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021738.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief, dated June 29, 2023) argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that Judge Nathan failed to explain the upward variance in her sentencing. The text asserts that Maxwell's argument is waived due to being cursory, and further details that Judge Nathan provided an extensive explanation regarding Maxwell's 'pivotal role' in the abuse of minors and the need for deterrence.
DOJ-OGR-00021737.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal, outlines the court's findings regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's supervisory role over Sarah Kellen. It cites testimony from Epstein's pilots and evidence from trial, such as flight logs and Kellen's scheduling of illicit massages under Maxwell's direction, to affirm that Maxwell led Kellen. The document dismisses Maxwell's argument that another person was her assistant, emphasizing that the key issue was Maxwell's exercise of authority over Kellen, not formal job titles.
DOJ-OGR-00021734.jpg
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 22-1426), argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of a jury note from her trial. The prosecution contends the jury's question about her guilt based on events in New Mexico was a valid inquiry into her intent, not a misunderstanding of the law. The document also refutes Maxwell's claim of insufficient evidence regarding her arrangement of a victim's (Jane's) return flight from New Mexico, suggesting the jury could have reasonably convicted her on that basis despite a lack of specific documentary proof.
DOJ-OGR-00021733.jpg
This page from a Department of Justice appellate brief argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding jury instructions. The document asserts that Judge Nathan correctly handled an ambiguous jury note concerning flight evidence and 'aiding and abetting' liability. It specifically references testimony by a victim named 'Jane' regarding flights on Epstein's private plane and commercial carriers to New York for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00021729.jpg
This legal document excerpt from a court case details a judge's decision to reject a jury instruction proposed by the defendant, Maxwell. Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell's requested instruction was incorrect, explaining that alleged sexual activity with the victim, Jane, in New Mexico could be relevant to proving intent for the charges under New York law. The judge ultimately decided to redirect the jury back to the original charge rather than adopt the defense's proposed language.
DOJ-OGR-00021728.jpg
This legal document details a specific event during the jury deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury sent a note to Judge Nathan questioning whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in the victim Jane's return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was allegedly formed. Judge Nathan found the question too complex and referred the jury back to the original instructions, prompting Maxwell to file a letter that night challenging the judge's response.
Jury Selection Questioning
Questioning during jury selection process.
Denial of Bail Application
Judge Nathan issued a detailed written opinion (Ex. H) denying Maxwell's application for bail.
Denial of Bail Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
Denial of request
Judge Nathan denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Justification of procedures
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
Nighttime security checks
Complaint that nighttime security checks interfere with ability to prepare for trial; request to modify procedures.
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.
Request for permission to share information
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska.
Legal Question
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
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.
Denial of Bail
Denial of application (Ex. H)
Victim Impact Statement
Describing the psychological impact of abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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