prosecutor
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jane's lawyer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prison lawyer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror Conrad
|
Communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge McMahon
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant Attorney General
|
Supervisory approval |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror Conrad
|
Correspondence |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Lenny Bruce's trial (implied by jury mention) | Chicago | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grand Jury Testimony | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Plea negotiation | The document discusses the nature of plea negotiations between a defendant and a prosecutor, spec... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Grand Jury Testimony regarding victim identification charts. | Unknown (Grand Jury Room) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Evidentiary hearing regarding the scope of the plea agreement. | District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE regarding financial exhibits. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination testimony of witness Loftus in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony (Direct Examination) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of witness Alessi in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Redirect examination of witness 'Jane' in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony filed on this date (testimony likely occurred earlier during trial). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2021-08-17 | N/A | Phone call between Robert Glassman and a prosecutor regarding witness 'Jane'. | Unknown (Phone) | View |
| 2021-01-01 | Conversation | A conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor regarding Jane's testimony. | N/A | View |
| 2020-11-10 | N/A | Grand Jury Presentation | Unknown | View |
| 2011-06-20 | N/A | Receipt of juror Conrad's letter to the prosecutor. | Unknown | View |
| 2011-06-20 | Receipt of communication | Brune & Richard lawyers received a copy of juror Conrad's letter to the prosecutor. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Plea conference where the decision to seal the federal non-prosecution agreement was made. | Palm Beach County Court | View |
| 1976-01-01 | N/A | Plea negotiations in Commonwealth v. Zuber | Pennsylvania | View |
| 0028-06-01 | N/A | Mary brought in front of the grand jury without briefing. | Court/Grand Jury Room | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001382.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the U.S. Government's description of inmate Ms. Maxwell's prison conditions is false. It counters claims of amenities by detailing harsh realities such as sleep deprivation from guards' actions, solitary confinement, unsanitary conditions, and inadequate resources for trial preparation. The filing asserts the government's information is based on unreliable, multi-layered hearsay from prison staff to the prosecutor.
DOJ-OGR-00018481.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named McHugh, presumably a JPMorgan employee, is under direct examination regarding the bank's record-keeping practices and the authentication of Government Exhibits 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, and 509. McHugh confirms that JPMorgan maintains digital images of account statements and that he verified the exhibits by comparing them against the bank's internal system of record on dual screens.
DOJ-OGR-00017200.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a rebuttal argument given by Ms. Comey. She argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie, as their civil cases are settled and the victim compensation fund they were paid from is finished. Ms. Comey refutes the defense's implication of a financial incentive for Jane by clarifying that a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor occurred in 2021, long after Jane had already received her financial award.
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
This document is page 135 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the current case is distinguishable from past precedents regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of false evidence. The text asserts that the defendant has not been deprived of a fair trial and notes that a jury will determine if her statements during April and July 2016 depositions were perjurious.
Summary of Ms. Maxwell's conditions
An unsworn letter to the court summarizing information passed from prison guards to a prison lawyer to the prosecutor.
Closing Arguments
Arguments regarding Maxwell's 'playbook' and guilt.
Jane's cooperation
Glassman discussed Jane's cooperation, stating he advised her it was the morally right thing to do and would 'help her case'.
Jane testifying
Jane's lawyer told the prosecutor he remembered telling Jane that testifying would be the morally right thing to do and could help her case. The speaker notes this conversation occurred long after Jane's civil case was settled and she had received her award.
Juror misconduct
A letter from juror Conrad to the prosecutor, a copy of which was received by Brune & Richard lawyers on June 20.
Plea Agreement Terms
Representation that the only agreement was that the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts at sentencing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity