Defense team
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Recipient of information |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Expert witness counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Criminal Division
|
Negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendants
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | David Weinstein discussed plea details (personal security and house arrest). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Elizabeth Loftus regarding false memory experiments. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Stipulation regarding the authenticity and admissibility of Palm Beach County School records | Southern District of New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between the prosecution team and Epstein's defense counsel where the plea offer (2 years,... | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Disclosure of Juror Letter | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense team reverted to negotiation of state charges | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña advised defense team regarding non-prosecution agreement context | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | The defense team needs to meet with Mr. Robertson in person to prepare for trial, review evidence... | jail | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The defense proposed the first iteration of a co-conspirator clause for a Non-Prosecution Agreeme... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Meetings with the defense team | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of prosecutors' families | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Supreme Court creates new rule regarding 'reckless disregard' and vacates death penalty for Tison... | Washington D.C. / Arizona | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense team investigators compiled dossiers on victims. | Not specified | View |
| 2025-04-12 | N/A | Scheduled review of physical evidence by defense team. | Courthouse | View |
| 2022-06-22 | N/A | Trial | Court | View |
| 2022-03-04 | N/A | Deadline for Defense reply. | Court Docket | View |
| 2022-02-04 | N/A | Deadline for Defense motion. | Court Docket | View |
| 2021-12-22 | N/A | Jury Trial proceedings in USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Signing of stipulation regarding evidence admissibility for trial. | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Ghislaine Maxwell Trial/Legal Proceedings | SDNY Courthouse | View |
| 2021-12-16 | N/A | Jury Trial proceedings in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell | New York, N.Y. | View |
| 2021-12-14 | N/A | Court Order regarding anticipated witnesses. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-12-09 | N/A | Jury Trial Proceedings | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-12-06 | N/A | Jury Trial held | Court (Judge Alison J. Nathan) | View |
| 2021-12-06 | N/A | Jury Trial proceedings held. | Court | View |
EFTA00030227.pdf
This document is an email thread from July 8, 2019, sent by attorney Marc Fernich. Fernich informs a redacted recipient that he is working with 'Reid' and 'Marty' (likely Reid Weingarten and Martin Weinberg) on Jeffrey Epstein's defense team. He notes that his colleagues are 'phoneless' and requests that any case updates, particularly regarding the judge assignment ('the judge we draw'), be sent directly to him.
EFTA00027916.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 6-8, 2019, between officials at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The discussion concerns a draft response to 'Epstein defense preservation requests' and mentions an upcoming discovery motion schedule. The correspondence occurs just two days before Jeffrey Epstein's death, with one participant noting 'there’s been a ton of stuff going on in the meantime.'
EFTA00022619.pdf
This document is an internal email chain from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) dated August 6-7, 2019. The correspondence concerns drafting a response to 'Epstein defense preservation requests' and references an '8/1 supplemental request' and a 'discovery motion schedule.' The emails involve an Assistant U.S. Attorney and other staff coordinating edits and discussions regarding legal responses to the Epstein defense team shortly before Epstein's death.
EFTA00013479.pdf
This document is a recovered digital calendar entry for an event titled 'Mw epstein defense team' scheduled for July 31, 2007, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The organizer field is redacted, and the metadata indicates the record was created or recovered in 2015. The entry is classified as 'X-PERSONAL' and likely refers to a meeting with Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense team.
EFTA00009890.pdf
This document is an email thread between defense and government counsel in the US v Maxwell case, dated April 19-20, 2021. The correspondence concerns scheduling a conferral call and negotiating specific redactions for several 'Reply Briefs' and exhibits to be filed on the public docket. Key issues include protecting the identities of accusers, third parties, and AUSAs, as well as handling confidential exhibits under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00001306.jpg
This is the final page (16) of a court order issued by US District Judge Martha Vazquez on February 6, 2021. The order grants Mr. Robertson's motion for immediate release (Doc 274) to allow him to prepare for an upcoming trial with his defense team, citing the need for preparation time and potential quarantine at 'La Pasada.' The judge simultaneously denies the government's emergency motion to stay the release order.
DOJ-OGR-00000592.jpg
This is page 7 of a court filing (Document 37-1) from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein), filed on July 25, 2019. It outlines strict protocols for a Protective Order regarding discovery materials, specifically prohibiting the Defendant from possessing materials outside the presence of counsel or copying them. It also establishes requirements for 'Designated Persons' to sign agreements before receiving confidential information and mandates the return or destruction of discovery materials at the case's conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020870.jpg
This document is a legal exhibit containing an excerpt from an article in The Independent featuring an interview with a juror named David following the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. David explains that the jury found the victims credible despite defense attempts to attack them and use memory expert Elizabeth Loftus to cast doubt on their recollections. He highlights a specific moment where a victim named 'Carolyn' became distressed on the stand, noting that such incidents increased his compassion rather than creating doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00002217.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 103) dated December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for Maxwell's release on bail, stating she and her spouse have pledged all assets and that her wealth suggests strict conditions rather than denial of bail. It refutes the government's claim that she is a flight risk or adept at hiding, and clarifies financial details regarding her spouse's assets and banking records.
DOJ-OGR-00021435.jpg
This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021276.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely OPR) detailing internal communications on September 19, 2007, between prosecutors Villafaña, Lourie, and U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz. While Villafaña and Lourie strongly recommended ending negotiations due to what they perceived as the defense's "bad faith" tactics of re-inserting rejected provisions, Acosta instructed them to continue trying to "work it out" rather than indict immediately. The page ends mid-sentence with Villafaña expressing concern about "caving" to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00023194.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a timeline of meetings between the USAO (including Alexander Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz). It covers the period from February 2007 to January 2008, categorizing meetings as 'Pre-NPA' and 'Post-NPA'. The table logs specific participants and topics, including the presentation of the NPA term sheet, discussions of investigation improprieties, and the negotiation of state plea provisions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021904.jpg
This document is a page from a rough draft transcript (likely House Oversight Committee) where a speaker questions the integrity of Epstein's flight logs. The speaker notes that Alan Dershowitz, a close friend and attorney for Epstein, was the specific individual who provided the logs to Detective Riccari. The speaker raises suspicion that Dershowitz's access to the logs prior to handing them over may have provided an opportunity to sanitize them or remove incriminating information.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021716.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article from August 2011 detailing legal arguments before Judge Kenneth Marra regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement. Attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, representing two Jane Does, argued that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The attorneys sought to nullify the agreement and unseal correspondence, aiming to expose Epstein to federal prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016440.jpg
This document, part of House Oversight records, details the friction between investigators (Recarey and Reiter) and the Palm Beach County State Attorney's office (Krischer and Belohlavek) during the Epstein investigation. It highlights defense attorney Alan Dershowitz's attempts to discredit a victim using her MySpace page and marijuana use, and Investigator Recarey's strong rebuttal against such victim-blaming. The text also notes that the prosecutors actively avoided communication with the investigators and delayed the approval of subpoenas.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016439.jpg
This document, likely an excerpt from a report or book included in House Oversight files (marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016439), details Alan Dershowitz's legal strategy in the Epstein case. It describes how Dershowitz and his team investigated the victims to compile dossiers on their 'troubled pasts' and met with officials Krischer and Recarey to argue that the accusers would not be credible witnesses.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity