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-00021727.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details the Government's arguments during the trial of Maxwell, focusing on the legal requirement that the criminal conduct was directed at New York. The prosecution argued that transporting victims like Jane to New York and intending for abuse to occur there was sufficient for conviction, even if the abuse itself happened elsewhere. The document also mentions the District Court's jury instructions, which focused on Maxwell's intent for sexual activity to take place in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021723.jpg
This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021722.jpg
This legal document details the rejection of defendant Maxwell's appeal arguments concerning Juror 50. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's claim of implied bias, based on the juror's personal history, to be unfounded, noting that the defense failed to pursue follow-up questions during voir dire. The document upholds Judge Nathan's determination that Juror 50 was credible, despite erroneous questionnaire answers, and that his post-verdict statements were properly disregarded.
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.
DOJ-OGR-00021719.jpg
This legal document discusses an appeal by a party named Maxwell, who is attempting to overturn a jury verdict due to errors made by Juror 50 on a questionnaire. The document outlines Judge Nathan's findings from a hearing, where she concluded that the juror's errors were inadvertent and his testimony was credible. Judge Nathan's opinion is that there are insufficient grounds to justify overturning the verdict based on this issue.
DOJ-OGR-00021715.jpg
This legal document details the District Court's decision, specifically Judge Nathan's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Judge Nathan's ruling was based on her assessment of Juror 50's testimony during a hearing, where she found his answers credible and concluded that his personal experiences did not compromise his impartiality, and that he would not have been struck for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021714.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, discussing the testimony of Juror 50 regarding his failure to disclose past sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. Juror 50 explains that he answered 'no' to questions about family members accused of abuse because he no longer considered his abuser (a stepbrother) family, and that he rushed through the questionnaire due to personal distractions and a belief he wouldn't be selected. The text notes that because of his negative answers, he was not asked follow-up questions by Judge Nathan during oral voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021713.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) detailing the procedural history of a hearing concerning 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes how Judge Nathan ordered a hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to answer jury selection questions truthfully regarding past sexual abuse. The document notes that on March 8, 2022, Juror 50 testified under immunity and admitted that his answers to specific questions (25 and 48) were inaccurate.
DOJ-OGR-00021711.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discussing the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically addressing how potential jurors with past experiences of sexual abuse were handled. It notes that defense counsel did not strike jurors who disclosed such history but affirmed their impartiality, citing specific examples of disclosures. The text transitions to a specific discussion regarding 'Juror 50' and their questionnaire responses to Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, presents an argument regarding the application of Section 3283 to charges against Maxwell for transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity. Maxwell contends the statute doesn't apply because a completed sex act isn't an element of the charge, but the document counters that trial evidence, including testimony from a victim named Jane, established that her offenses did involve completed sex acts. A footnote adds that Judge Nathan found another charge, Count Six, to be timely based on the retroactive application of a different statute, § 3299.
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely by the Government) appearing in the appellate case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues that the statute of limitations for the charges against Maxwell had not expired due to the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. The text supports Judge Nathan's lower court ruling that applying this amendment was not an impermissible retroactive effect, distinguishing Maxwell's situation from the precedent set in United States v. Richardson.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021697.jpg
This legal document page discusses the second step of the Landgraf analysis, a legal test to determine if a statute can be applied retroactively. It cites Supreme Court precedent from the Landgraf case to explain that a statute is impermissibly retroactive if it impairs rights, increases liability, or imposes new duties for past conduct, but clarifies that changes to procedural rules are generally not considered retroactive. The document also references the case of Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist. as an example of the court considering a new statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on June 29, 2023. It argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the statute of limitations under the PROTECT Act. The text asserts that Congress rejected a specific retroactivity clause not to limit the Act's scope entirely, but to avoid unconstitutional results (reviving time-barred crimes), while still intending to cover past conduct where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
This document is page 27 of a legal filing (dated June 29, 2023) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the District Court (Judge Nathan) correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss without a hearing because the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida were clear and did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. A footnote clarifies that even if the NPA applied, it would only cover specific counts (Count Six) and not others (Counts Three and Four) involving different victims and time periods.
DOJ-OGR-00021672.jpg
This legal document describes the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old minor named Melissa, who was brought by another girl, Carolyn, to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein at his Palm Beach residence. The document then outlines the legal proceedings against Maxwell, detailing the jury's guilty verdict on December 29, 2021, and Judge Nathan's subsequent denial of Maxwell's motions for a new trial and other post-trial motions in April 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00021662.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) summarizes the procedural history and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details her conviction on counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy, her acquittal on one count of enticement, and her sentence of 240 months imprisonment plus fines issued by Judge Nathan. The document also begins a 'Statement of Facts' noting that the government established Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein facilitated sexual abuse of minors from 1994 to 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. Attorney Sternheim is speaking on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell, addressing the court and Judge Nathan. Ms. Sternheim acknowledges the courage of the victims and argues against the government's request for a sentence of 'multiple decades in prison' for Ms. Maxwell, who is nearly 61 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021608.jpg
This document is a victim impact statement from a legal proceeding against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker, a psychologist and victim, describes the long-term personal and professional harm caused by Maxwell and Epstein's sex-trafficking operation and urges Judge Nathan to consider Maxwell's continued dishonesty and the profound suffering of her victims when determining her prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021605.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 60) of a sentencing hearing, likely for Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues for a harsh sentence to demonstrate that wealth does not place one above the law. Subsequently, a victim named Ms. Farmer begins her impact statement, describing the psychological trauma and loss of self-trust resulting from abuse committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021166.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) outlining the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case post-trial. It details her conviction dates, sentencing by Judge Nathan (including a $750,000 fine and concurrent prison terms), and the timeline of her appeal process, including various motions for extensions and oversized briefs filed between July 2022 and February 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00019632.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, presents the Government's argument against an appeal by Maxwell. The Government contends that Maxwell has failed to show sufficient harm from Judge Nathan's Order to warrant an appeal and that pursuing the appeal is an inefficient use of resources while a criminal case is pending in the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00019631.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of an unsealing order. The author contends that Maxwell's appeal is improper because the issue can be reviewed after a final judgment, and she has not sufficiently explained how the unsealing would prejudice her criminal case. The document cites legal precedent to assert that Maxwell's appeal does not satisfy the requirements of the collateral order doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019620.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that describes a court order issued by Judge Nathan on September 2, 2020. The order denied a motion from Maxwell, finding her arguments for using criminal discovery materials in her civil cases to be vague and unsubstantiated. The document also notes that Maxwell subsequently filed an appeal of this order on September 4, 2020, and a motion to consolidate the appeal on September 10, 2020.
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.
Legal Question
A note asking a question about flights or evidence, described as 'decidedly ambiguous' by the judge.
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 Request
Judge Nathan issued a written opinion (Ex. L) denying Maxwell's request for bail.
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)
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.
Justification of procedures
Solicited a response regarding surveillance procedures.
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 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.
Appropriateness of an inquiry
Invited Juror 50 to address the inquiry into his conduct and the effect of his personal history on deliberations.
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