Ms. Moe
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
26 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
228 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mrs. Hesse
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Special Agent Maguire
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Drescher
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. McHugh
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing (likely for Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Counts Seven and Eight against Ghislaine Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Carolyn testified and wrote down her mother's phone number to avoid saying it aloud. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Jane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution announces intent to rest case | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing Calculation | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar regarding cross-examination of witness 'Jane'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government meeting with witness Brian | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018924.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It documents the conclusion of the cross-examination of a witness named Shawn, regarding the timeline of her pregnancy and residence in Georgia and Florida between 2000 and 2004. Following her dismissal, the government calls its next witness, Nicole Hesse.
DOJ-OGR-00018914.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the admissibility of testimony concerning a person named Amanda. The Judge sustains an objection regarding the testimony, noting that previous testimony established a belief that the individual was 17 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00018860.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge admonishes the attorneys to provide a specific rule of evidence when making objections, rather than using one-word grounds, to prevent improper communication with the jury or witnesses. After confirming no further business is expected for the evening, the court is adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 8, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified attorney argues for the record that certain materials are not privileged, citing three reasons: no communication was required, potential disclosure to the government would waive privilege, and the intent to communicate to a third party negates privilege from the start. The judge acknowledges the argument but states that the court had already sustained an objection based on privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00018857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00018856.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about scheduling a future court session, with the judge suggesting evening or weekend dates to avoid conflicting with the jury. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, also makes a formal request to the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to communicate about her testimony with another witness, who is Jane's younger sibling and is also under subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00018855.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of a charging conference, potentially on December 16th or 18th. Ms. Moe indicates that the government anticipates resting its case by Thursday of that week, pending the cross-examination of remaining witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00018854.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe informs the court that the government anticipates resting its case 'this week.' The Judge grants a request to keep a document under seal to protect the identities of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms and discusses scheduling a charging conference, noting a conflict on the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018758.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger. The main topics are a potential violation of a witness sequestration order, after Ms. Menninger admits to speaking briefly with a Ms. Moe, and the scheduling of future proceedings. The judge requires the attorneys to brief the sequestration issue and indicates a decision on whether a person named Brian will testify is pending their input.
DOJ-OGR-00018751.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a brief exchange where the court confirms with attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that a defense question involves privacy issues, after which the court calls for a 30-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018750.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion where a new piece of evidence, referred to as 'the notes', is introduced. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, states she has not had time to review them, so the Court calls for a 30-minute recess at 12:55 PM. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, outlines a plan to provide a stamped and emailed copy of the notes to the judge's chambers during the break.
DOJ-OGR-00018682.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca). The conversation focuses on scheduling the next witness, whose testimony is expected to extend past the lunch break, and the potential need to call a witness out of order. The judge agrees to the proposed flexibility before preparing to bring the jury into the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00018615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge sustains an objection to Exhibit 309 and grants a request by Ms. Moe for a sealed sidebar discussion regarding the cross-examination of an individual named Brian due to privacy concerns. Consequently, pages 1440 to 1443 of the transcript are noted as sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018610.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger discuss the timeline for investigating a potential violation of a sequestration order, deciding not to expedite the matter due to a person named Brian's travel plans. Ms. Menninger also raises a new issue, highlighting a discrepancy between a recent letter from the government and information she received in a prior conferral.
DOJ-OGR-00018609.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and two counsels, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the scheduling and scope of testimony for a witness named Brian, who has a flight planned for the next day. The court directs the government to first inquire about what Brian learned from another individual, Jane, before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00018605.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and a lawyer, Ms. Moe. The judge expresses concern that a witness, Brian, may have been coached by another person, Jane, during a recent conversation. Ms. Moe refutes this by arguing that Brian's testimony is consistent with statements he provided to the government long before the trial, which are documented in '3500 material', thus proving his testimony was not recently influenced.
DOJ-OGR-00018604.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding witness conduct, specifically whether witnesses were instructed not to confer with one another. Ms. Moe confirms it is standard practice to instruct witnesses not to speak to each other, and discloses a meeting 'last night' with a witness named Brian, who revealed he had spoken with another witness, Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00018603.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding potential witness coaching. The discussion centers on a conversation between two siblings about one's unpleasant experience testifying, prompting the judge to inquire about whether witnesses were properly instructed not to discuss their testimony with others. Ms. Moe also mentions speaking with the witness's (Jane's) attorney after her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018601.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing an argument about witness tampering. An attorney informs the judge that a witness who already testified contacted a future witness, Brian, to discuss their testimony, potentially violating a sequestration order. The attorney requests that Brian be barred from testifying, while another attorney, Ms. Moe, begins a counterargument by citing legal rules regarding witness exclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00018597.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the examination of witnesses KATE, PATRICK McHUGH, KELLY MAGUIRE, and KIMBERLY MEDER by various attorneys, listing the page numbers for each direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. The document also lists several government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018596.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript records a discussion ending an evidentiary session where an attorney argues against humiliating women with naked photographs in the courtroom. The court considers an item labeled '309' before adjourning proceedings until December 7, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between two lawyers, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the presiding judge regarding the defense's ability to cross-examine a witness about a photograph, referred to as exhibit 309. Ms. Moe states the witness, Kate, was shown the photo in a prior interview and that the defense was aware of this, countering the defense's claim that their rights were compromised.
DOJ-OGR-00018593.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a legal debate over the admissibility of a photograph. Defense counsel argues the photo is prejudicial, while Ms. Moe contends it is relevant; the judge ultimately overrules the objection. The discussion also references a witness named Kate, who testified earlier that day, and whose connection to the photograph is debated.
DOJ-OGR-00018592.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues against admitting a topless photograph of a female subject found in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in 2019, stating the photo dates to 2002 when the subject was of age. Menninger argues that introducing the photo creates a '403 problem' (prejudice) because the prosecution will not call the subject to testify due to her 'credibility problems.'
Request to be heard
Ms. Moe asks the Court if she may be heard on the matter being discussed.
Use of an agent to present exhibits
Ms. Moe explains to the court that they prefer to use an agent to publish exhibits to the jury to avoid exposing sensitive identifying information like phone numbers and names, which would be a risk with lay witnesses.
Objection to questioning
Ms. Moe objects to a question posed to the witness, citing issues of relevance and personal knowledge.
Defense tactics and evidence
Ms. Moe argues to the jury that the defense misled them by taking Jane's statements and a legal document out of context to create a misimpression, and points to a specific part of the document implicating Maxwell.
Questioning and witness contact
Ms. Moe discusses a particular question she might ask and seeks to clarify the status of contacts with a witness named Jane.
Summation in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell
Ms. Moe argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is a dangerous predator who systematically targeted and abused vulnerable girls. She references witness testimony, corroborating accounts, law enforcement searches, employee statements, and documentary evidence like bank records showing a $30 million payment from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell.
Rule 408 issue and brief anonymity
Ms. Moe discusses the Rule 408 issue with the Court, stating they will withdraw their objection if incorrect. She then raises an issue of "brief anonymity," leading the Court to call for a sidebar.
Summary of sexual abuse allegations against Maxwell and E...
The speaker (Ms. Moe) is summarizing the testimony of a victim named Jane, detailing the sexual abuse she suffered from Maxwell and Epstein, and arguing that their actions were not normal.
Examination regarding Government Exhibits 926 and 929
Ms. Moe questions Special Agent Maguire about a photograph (Exhibit 926) showing CDs seized by the FBI. The exhibit is admitted into evidence.
Rebuttal of defense's attempt to discredit witness Jane
Ms. Moe argues to the jury that the defense's tactic of presenting other women named Michelle and Ava was a meaningless 'sideshow' intended to distract them. She states that the witness, Jane, never identified these specific women (Michelle Healey and Eva Dubin) and that the defense was deliberately vague, noting that Epstein's contact book contained multiple people with these common names.
Seizure of evidence from a house
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Maguire, about items seized from a house, including binders with CDs, jewelry, hard drives, diamonds, currency, and passports. Maguire confirms seizing the items, describes how the CDs were labeled as evidence (1B26, 1B75, 1B78), and explains the chain of custody process.
Procedure for publishing exhibits to a jury
Ms. Moe requests permission to publish exhibits to the jury in a streamlined manner without using lay witnesses. The Court questions this approach, suggesting it could be done in closing arguments and noting its dissimilarity to procedures seen before.
Admissibility of evidence (photographs of costumes)
Ms. Moe argues for the immediate admission of evidence. The Court finds the evidence relevant but reserves judgment on the 'timeframe issue' pending connection through witness testimony. They discuss the mechanics of presenting the evidence, which is confirmed to be photographs of costumes.
Admissibility of testimony from a witness named Amanda
Ms. Moe argues that testimony from Amanda is being offered as direct, corroborative evidence for the accounts of other victims, and not to establish Amanda as an additional victim.
Admissibility of testimony from a witness named Amanda
The Court challenges the classification of the testimony, stating it's only direct evidence if Amanda is a victim of the conspiracy (which would violate an order) and only corroborative if the age matches up. The Court questions the purpose of the witness's age and ultimately sustains an objection.
Ambiguity of evidence regarding flights
MS. MOE responds to the previous speaker, stating that a note being discussed is unclear about which flight it refers to (a return flight vs. a flight to New Mexico), making it difficult to determine intent.
Conversations with mother about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghisl...
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Jane, about whether she spoke with her mother about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 14, 15, and 16.
Admissibility of evidence related to civil litigation set...
MS. MOE responds to the Court's questions about a legal issue, stating she is not familiar with a specific case but will look into it.
Summation of Maxwell's guilt
Ms. Moe argues that Maxwell is guilty because she instructed household staff to ignore criminal activity and because she used a consistent 'playbook' to exploit multiple young girls.
Direct examination regarding Government Exhibit 505
Ms. Moe questions the witness, Mr. McHugh, to identify Government Exhibit 505 as an asset account statement from October 1999 for account 5001 at the Financial Trust Company, Inc. She also directs Ms. Drescher on how to display the evidence.
New witness list
In response to the Court, Ms. Moe confirms that defense counsel can be provided with a new witness list that evening.
Direct examination regarding messages
Ms. Moe begins questioning Mrs. Hesse about three specific messages, asking her to turn to a binder.
Authentication of an exhibit
Ms. Moe clarifies her position that the witness can authenticate an exhibit belonging to Maxwell and Epstein based on observation, not presence during a specific time period.
Ruling on an objection
The Court sustains an objection made by Ms. Comey, instructs the jury to disregard testimony, and reserves its ruling on the exhibit's admission until after hearing from 'employee one'.
Examination regarding Government Exhibit 925
MS. MOE questions the witness, Maguire, about Government Exhibit 925, which is a photograph of binders containing photo thumbnails and CDs. The witness confirms these items were seized as evidence from a residence and labeled with evidence Item 1B-19.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity