ALISON J. NATHAN
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
54
Very Strong
|
90 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
24
Very Strong
|
33 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
21
Very Strong
|
66 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant judge |
19
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
40 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
46 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judicial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Christian R. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Bobbi C. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Judicial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Paula Speer
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
AUDREY STRAUSS
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
U.S. government
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Prosecutor judge |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial authority |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judicial assignment |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Judge defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
None |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court proceeding | Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell will move the Court for an Order regarding jury selection procedures. | United States Courthouse at... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record, but consente... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Sentencing hearing | The document pertains to procedures for victims to speak at an upcoming sentencing hearing for Gh... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Proposed meeting | Request for an in camera conference to discuss filing procedures for the bail motion. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Ongoing criminal case, Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, against Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A four-and-a-half-week jury trial for Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A thirteen-day trial was held for Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | A future sentencing hearing is planned, which victims Kate and Annie intend to attend. | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record but consented... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Upcoming pre-trial proceedings and trial for the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Ma... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The ongoing criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States Courthouse, 4... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's sentencing hearing, during which Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein have requested t... | United States District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court granted the request for Annie Farmer, Kate, and/or Virginia Giuffre to make oral statem... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 mon... | United States District Cour... | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A court hearing is mentioned where Virginia Giuffre was expected to be present to give a statement. | courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-18 | N/A | Charging conference | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-22 | Court filing | Transcript of Proceedings for the sentencing held on 6/28/2022 was filed. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court filing | Transcript of Proceedings for the trial held on 12/29/21 was filed. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Judgment of conviction entered following a four-and-a-half-week jury trial. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Judgment in a criminal case was imposed and filed for Ghislaine Maxwell. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | A judgment of conviction was entered against Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal judgment | A judgment was entered in the action against Ghislaine Maxwell. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | Legal proceeding | Ghislaine Maxwell's judgment of conviction was entered in the United States District Court for th... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-06-29 | N/A | Imposition of Judgment | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000844.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from July 2020 detailing the unsealing of the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, her arrest in New Hampshire, and the subsequent assignment of the case to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It records the addition of prosecution attorneys (Rossmiller, Comey, Moe), a motion for detention, and procedural orders regarding scheduling an initial appearance and bail hearing via remote video due to COVID-19 protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
DOJ-OGR-00000841.jpg
This document is a criminal docket sheet from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the case USA v. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020. It identifies Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant, Judge Alison J. Nathan as the presiding judge, and lists the five attorneys and their respective law firms representing Maxwell. The document provides contact information for the legal counsel involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000840.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on March 24, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The appeal challenges a court order from March 22, 2021, which denied her 'Third Motion for Release on Bail'. The document identifies Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, and the prosecuting Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00000004.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell. It identifies the legal counsel for both the prosecution (Appellee) and the defense (Appellant), and summarizes that Maxwell is appealing her June 29, 2022, conviction and sentencing by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on charges including conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00000003.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion dated September 17, 2024, regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction. The document outlines the five legal questions Maxwell raised on appeal, including issues related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, the statute of limitations, and jury conduct. The appellate court found no errors in the District Court's proceedings and affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021046.jpg
This document is a formal Notice of Appeal filed on July 7, 2022, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The notice, submitted by her counsel Bobbi C. Sternheim, indicates Maxwell's intent to appeal her conviction and sentence, which were officially entered on June 29, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The appeal is directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00021028.jpg
This document is the final page (45) of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled on motions regarding multiplicity, dismissing Counts One and Five as multiplicitous with Count Three, and ordering judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six. The document confirms the sentencing date for June 28, 2022, and explicitly links the Defendant to a decade-long conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to groom and abuse underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00021018.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the denial of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'constructive amendment' and 'prejudicial variance' related to Count Three (conspiracy to transport) and Count Four. The Court rules that testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding abuse in New Mexico did not improperly amend the charges, noting that evidence also involved victims 'Annie' and 'Carolyn'.
DOJ-OGR-00021006.jpg
This page contains a legal analysis from a court document (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the legal standards for 'variance' versus 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Banki, Rigas, Bastian, Salmonese, etc.) to establish that a defendant must prove substantial prejudice to reverse a conviction based on a variance claim. The text concludes by noting the Defendant is bringing a motion pursuant to Rule 33 to vacate judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020984.jpg
This document is an Opinion & Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated April 29, 2022, concerning the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. Authored by Judge Alison J. Nathan, it provides background on Maxwell's 2020 indictment and subsequent conviction on five counts related to sex trafficking with her 'longtime companion,' Jeffrey Epstein. The order addresses the defendant's post-trial motions to vacate the convictions.
DOJ-OGR-00020983.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 1, 2022, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order denies the Defendant's motion for a new trial, concluding that 'Juror 50' harbored no bias, orders a presentence investigation report, and confirms sentencing is scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00020975.jpg
This document is page 32 of a 40-page court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standard for 'implied bias' regarding jurors, specifically rejecting the argument that a juror must be presumed biased simply for having personal experiences similar to the issues at trial. The court cites Second Circuit precedents (Daugerdas, Torres, Brown, Garcia) to support the conclusion that implied bias is a narrow category reserved for extreme situations, such as deliberate lying to get on a jury, rather than merely shared experiences.
DOJ-OGR-00020956.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. The Court is analyzing a motion regarding juror misconduct, specifically applying the *McDonough* test to determine if a juror's false answers during *voir dire* necessitate a new trial. The Court ultimately finds that the juror's false answers were not deliberate and proceeds to analyze the second prong of the test regarding bias (actual, implied, or inferable).
DOJ-OGR-00020930.jpg
This document is page 16 of a juror questionnaire (Juror ID: 50) filed on March 9, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The juror confirms they have no personal or familial relationships with the defense attorneys (Everdell, Pagliuca, Menninger, Sternheim) or the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The document contains handwritten 'X' marks indicating negative responses to questions regarding potential conflicts of interest.
DOJ-OGR-00020867.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order commands Juror 50 to appear for a public hearing on March 8, 2022, to provide testimony. It also sets deadlines for the involved parties to submit proposed questions and to request redactions to a temporarily sealed Opinion & Order.
DOJ-OGR-00020856.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 28, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It identifies the case as United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and details the legal counsel appearing for both the prosecution and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00020854.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, filed during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The defense argues that a jury note indicates confusion regarding Counts Two and Four, specifically concerning jurisdiction and New York law. The text argues that the jury should not be permitted to convict Maxwell based on conduct that occurred in New Mexico (specifically aiding in a return flight from New Mexico) as it does not constitute a violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00020853.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court's response to a jury note was incorrect and prejudicial, citing Second Circuit case law regarding the importance of accurate instructions during jury deliberations. A footnote clarifies the defense's position on the jurisdictional requirements of the conspiracy counts, specifically regarding intent and the location of sexual activity (New York) involving individuals under 17.
DOJ-OGR-00020852.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury appears to be considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four based on events in New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane,' whereas the indictment specified events in New York. The defense contends that allowing a conviction based on the New Mexico evidence would constitute a 'constructive amendment' or 'substantial variance' from the indictment, which would be a reversible legal error.
DOJ-OGR-00020851.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that for a conviction on Count Four, the jury must only consider evidence related to the violation of New York Penal Law concerning the transportation of 'Jane' from Florida to New York. The document stresses that any conduct that occurred in New Mexico is irrelevant to this specific charge, citing a statement by the government during the trial to support this point and avoid jury confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020850.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' from the S2 Indictment, citing case law (Gross, D'Amelio, Wozniak) to define the constitutional protections against convicting a defendant on charges not specified in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00020849.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated December 27, 2021, from defense attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan during the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests additional jury instructions to clarify 'apparent errors' in the jury's understanding of Count Four, specifically regarding whether aiding in a return flight (rather than the flight to the location of sexual activity, such as New Mexico) constitutes guilt. The letter references a specific jury note (Court Exhibit #15) and cites the indictment regarding transportation from Florida to New York for sexual acts with Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020828.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Case 22-1426), likely an appellate appendix, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court documents related to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including indictments, orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan, transcripts of proceedings from late 2021, and a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement. The document outlines the structure of the appendix with page references ranging from A-1 to A-238.
DOJ-OGR-00020823.jpg
This is a court order dated August 13, 2021, from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order denies a motion from an individual named Maxwell seeking relief related to the S2 indictment, referencing a prior Opinion & Order from April 16, 2021 as part of the basis for the decision.
DOJ-OGR-00020810.jpg
District Judge Alison J. Nathan denies all pending pretrial motions filed by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeking to dismiss the S2 superseding indictment and compel discovery. The court specifically rejects the argument that the charges are barred by Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, reaffirming that the agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Response Deadline
Order to respond to Defendant's letter by 5:00 p.m. on Oct 15, 2021.
Order on Redactions
Judge adopts proposed redactions for specific motions.
Order referenced as Dkt. No. 89
A previous court order from December 7, 2020, which the Defendant's filing was in accordance with.
Endorsement on Letter Motion
The Court sees no basis for sealing this letter. Defendant must justify sealing by Dec 2, 2020, or file publicly.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Legal arguments regarding 'The Material' and subpoena service issues.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity