Court staff
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Work session | Court staff, counsel, and parties worked on a Saturday to prepare for the proceedings. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection Process (Questionnaire and Voir Dire) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2025-11-21 | N/A | Morning session for jury questionnaires | Court | View |
| 2021-11-17 | N/A | Hearing scheduled for Wednesday (relative to Nov 8 email) | Court (implied) | View |
| 2021-11-04 | Jury selection | Scheduled date for administration of a screening questionnaire for jury selection. | N/A | View |
| 2021-10-22 | N/A | Jury Selection / Questionnaire Completion | Courthouse | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | GHISLAINE MAXWELL Removal Hearing 20mj132-01 | Remote via ZoomGov (New Ham... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008449.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal because the core information is already public. It outlines significant logistical challenges and potential delays associated with making materials like binders and slides accessible to the public in real-time. As a compromise, the parties have agreed to release the demonstrative materials for public review after the arguments are concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a joint proposal from the prosecution and defense regarding the presentation of closing arguments. The parties argue that alternatives like toggling monitors or using printed binders for the jury are unworkable due to potential interruptions, logistical difficulties, and the risk of inadvertently exposing sealed material, which would violate the privacy of victims and third parties. They propose instead to provide redacted copies of their presentation slides to the public on the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00008440.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing the parties' presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal, as the content is already largely public. It highlights significant logistical concerns and potential delays that would arise from making the slides public in real-time, such as managing binders and toggling monitors. The parties have instead agreed to make the demonstratives available for public review after the arguments are complete.
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text denies the defendant's Rule 33 motion for a new trial and outlines the background of the jury selection process, detailing how it was conducted under COVID-19 protocols using questionnaires and voir dire to screen for bias in a high-profile case. It references specific docket entries (366, 367, 404, 427, 459) and transcript dates.
Train Delay
Juror called worried about being late due to a train issue; court advised them to get there safely.
Reply to Dec 30 email
Replied regarding news reports about the issue with Juror 50.
Re: [EXTERNAL] 20CR330 U.S. V GHISLAINE, MAXWELL
Confirming they expect to order the transcript for same day delivery.
Unknown (Original email)
Informing that the FPTC (Final Pre-Trial Conference) is scheduled for tomorrow for 4 hours at 9:30 and asking about transcript orders.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity