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.'
Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.
Sentencing recommendation
Requesting an above-guideline sentence to hold the defendant accountable and send a message that no one is above the law.
Scheduling and Sealing
Ms. Moe updates the court that the prosecution anticipates resting their case 'this week' and discusses sealing a document containing pseudonym identities.
Admissibility of Photographs
Discussion regarding whether photographs corroborate a witness's blind description of a residence interior given the time lapse.
Verification of facts
Conferring with the agent involved in breaching the door to verify information.
Cross-examination regarding travel records
Clarifying the start date of travel bookings (1999) and the date range of records in exhibit RS-1 (1999-2006).
Response to Scheduling Concerns
Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding clarification of New York vs New Mexico law in jury charges.
Sentencing arguments
Prosecution opening statement regarding sentencing recommendation for Ghislaine Maxwell.
Post-testimony discussion
Ms. Moe spoke with Jane's attorney following Jane's testimony, reminding him of something.
Discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if the conspiracy end date mentioned by the court (July 2004) differs from the sentencing transcript, they will submit a letter to the Court.
Potential discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if a review of exhibits shows a different date than the sentencing transcript, 'we will submit a letter to the Court'.
Potential discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if a review of exhibits shows a different date than the sentencing transcript, 'we will submit a letter to the Court'.
Duration of a criminal conspiracy
MS. MOE argues to the Court that a conspiracy was still active at the end of 2004, citing Carolyn's testimony about visiting Epstein's house as evidence.
Duration of a criminal conspiracy
MS. MOE argues to the Court that a conspiracy was still active at the end of 2004, citing Carolyn's testimony about visiting Epstein's house as evidence.
Court proceedings
Ms. Menninger reports to the court that "Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly."
Jane's testimony
Ms. Moe spoke with Jane's attorney following Jane's testimony, recalling that she told and reminded him of something (the details are cut off).
Copy of notes
Ms. Moe suggests that during the court break, they will send an email containing a copy of the notes to the judge's chambers.
Discrepancy in conspiracy end date
Ms. Moe states that if the conspiracy end date from the exhibits differs from the sentencing transcript, she will submit a letter to the Court.
Testimony of Special Agent Maguire regarding their FBI ro...
Ms. Moe questions Special Agent Maguire about their employment at the FBI, their assignment to the C20 child exploitation and human trafficking task force, their specific job responsibilities, and their involvement in an FBI operation on July 6, 2019.
Unknown
Ms. Moe refers to a note she made about a conversation with Mr. Glassman, which she argues cannot be an exhibit at trial.
End date of a conspiracy and post-conspiracy evidence
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005. The Court challenges this, suggesting the evidence is for post-conspiracy conduct as it exceeds the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday, a key element of the charge.
Anonymity Order Confirmation
MS. MOE asks the Court to confirm that the anonymity order for the witness Kate, particularly regarding sketch artists, is in effect.
Response to argument
Ms. Moe, when asked to respond to Mr. Everdell's point, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal and states that they rest on their previously submitted briefing on the issue.
Objection to Offense Level Calculation
Ms. Moe objects to the judge's calculation under guideline 3D1.4, stating that 5 units should add 4 levels, not 5.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity