THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00008343.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 10, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony regarding Accuser 2 and Accuser 3 might lead the jury to convict Maxwell on an improper basis because their allegations do not relate to New York law violations. The Court acknowledges the need to clarify to the jury that while evidence may be relevant to enticement charges, sexual activity in New Mexico cannot be considered as the illegal conduct charged in the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008341.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. The Judge ('The Court') is discussing jury instructions regarding a specific witness involved in sexual conduct in New Mexico. The Judge notes that while the witness was above the age of consent in New Mexico, the government is using the evidence to prove enticement for illegal acts in New York, and the jury instructions must accurately reflect this legal distinction without favoring the government's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00008340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concerning the precise wording of jury instructions. They specifically debate whether the defendant, Mr. Epstein, could be convicted 'solely' based on a witness's testimony, with both agreeing that such an instruction would be an incorrect statement of law and potentially a reversible error.
DOJ-OGR-00008339.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are clarifying a point of law regarding the testimony of 'witness 3' about sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The core of the conversation is whether the defendant can be convicted 'solely' on this testimony or if it must be considered in combination with other evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008337.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021, detailing a conversation between the judge and attorneys for the defense and government. The discussion focuses on whether the defense will call expert witnesses (LaPorte and Naso), with a defense attorney stating it's unlikely and was only considered as a precaution regarding 'Accuser No. 2'. A government attorney expresses concern about the potential for the defense to decide to call these experts in the middle of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008336.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. It records a procedural argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding the sufficiency of the government's disclosures (Rule 16 and 3500 materials) concerning their expert witness, Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient regarding the expert's opinions, they may face issues later in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. In the transcript, the judge discusses the disclosure of expert witness opinions with defense counsel, Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach. The judge agrees to a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the defense to provide these opinions and reminds them of their obligation under Rule 16 to provide a clear notice of the opinions, stating that it is not a "scavenger hunt."
DOJ-OGR-00008334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of expert testimony provided by a Mr. Flatley concerning digital forensics and metadata. The judge instructs the parties on how to handle differing expert opinions on forensic principles.
DOJ-OGR-00008333.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before the court about the nature of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The central issue is whether Mr. Flatley will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding his methods for user data extraction, and whether sufficient notice was provided to the opposing side.
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Mr. Pagliuca), and the Judge regarding the physical inspection of evidence that occurred on November 1st. The Judge instructs the government not to mention specific evidence with uncertain admissibility in their opening statement and transitions the proceedings to discuss the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008327.jpg
This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021, documents a pretrial discussion. The judge rules on the process for determining the admissibility of testimony and orders the government to make a document exhibit available for defense inspection, after which the attorneys confirm the inspection already occurred on November 1st and that the original exhibit will be present at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008326.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion about a motion to preclude Government Exhibit 52. The judge denies the motion to preclude before trial, opting to hear witness testimony first. The conversation, primarily between the judge and attorney Ms. Moe, clarifies that a witness will authenticate the exhibit by testifying they saw a very similar, but not necessarily identical, book, without knowing how the specific exhibit came into government possession.
DOJ-OGR-00008325.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Dec 10, 2021) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The Judge instructs the attorney to prioritize using physical binders for cross-examination exhibits rather than relying solely on digital screens, though exceptions are allowed. The document is stamped with a Department of Justice identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning the practical methods for presenting documentary evidence during a trial. The judge suggests preparing a binder of potential exhibits, while the attorney expresses concern, leading to a discussion about the role of a paralegal in displaying documents on a monitor during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008321.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated December 10, 2021. The dialogue is between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and the Court regarding the logistics of presenting evidence; specifically, they agree that while electronic display is standard, sensitive documents containing identifying information of victims should be provided to jurors in paper binders to prevent them from being seen on public courtroom screens.
DOJ-OGR-00008320.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a pre-trial hearing. The judge notes that the government failed to include a financial institution on a list of entities to be mentioned at trial. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, then raises a procedural issue, proposing that any impeachment or refreshing of a witness's recollection be handled electronically.
DOJ-OGR-00008318.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, captures a discussion where attorney Ms. Moe informs the court of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Moe explains that prospective Juror No. 93 is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness is an executive director, and that this issue has also been flagged for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008316.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021. In it, an attorney, Ms. Comey, informs the court that the defense has subpoenaed the attorney for 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at the trial. Ms. Comey argues that any such testimony would likely be protected by attorney-client privilege and asks the court to preclude it.
DOJ-OGR-00008314.jpg
A transcript page from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that certain past offenses, such as juvenile curfew violations and old misdemeanors, should not be grounds for cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) argues that the government's list includes items within the rules. The Judge intervenes, instructing the attorneys to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to reach an agreement and to submit any remaining good-faith disputes in writing for judicial resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00008313.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court to request a briefing schedule to preclude defense counsel from cross-examining government witnesses on specific topics, citing concerns about witness anonymization, embarrassment, and irrelevant criminal convictions. The Court instructs the parties to engage in further discussion to narrow their disputes before submitting a briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00008312.jpg
This document is a transcript from a final pretrial conference in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021. Counsel for the government and for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, state their appearances for the record. The court outlines the plan for jury selection, which is scheduled to conclude on "Monday morning, the 29th," and notes that unused jurors are being kept on call at the recommendation of the jury department.
DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 9, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules the Defense's objections to the admission of a 'directory' (contact book) on both authentication and hearsay grounds. The Judge cites Second Circuit precedents (Al-Moayad, Londono) to establish that address books can be admitted for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the possessor of the document to the names listed within, rather than proving the accuracy of the contact details.
DOJ-OGR-00008262.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript filed on December 8, 2021. The judge adjourns the proceedings and then makes a correction regarding the court's schedule, noting that the courthouse will be closed on December 23rd and December 30th. This correction was prompted by a reminder from the judge's deputy.
DOJ-OGR-00008261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing filed on December 8, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceeding, counsel for the government, Ms. Comey, informs the court they are working to identify a defense witness as the case approaches trial. After the court adjourns the hearing until the 23rd, an unidentified speaker raises a lingering issue regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process related to a specific employer, which is to be discussed at sidebar.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $9,500,000.00 | Value of real property offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | security company | THE COURT | $1,000,000.00 | Bond co-signed by a security company. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $550,000.00 | Cash offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | THE COURT | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed total bond amount. | View |
| 2020-12-14 | Received | Sureties (Family/... | THE COURT | $0.00 | Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... | View |
| 2020-07-13 | Received | Unidentified co-s... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Defense/Co-signers | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Ms. Maxwell / Ass... | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $22,500,000.00 | Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | MR. EPSTEIN | THE COURT | $0.00 | Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... | View |
| 2019-07-11 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | THE COURT | $77,000,000.00 | Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... | View |
| 2010-07-01 | Received | Epstein's counsel | THE COURT | $5,000.00 | Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. | View |
Support for Ms. Maxwell's renewed bail application
Letters submitted to the court (Exs. A-N, W-X) from Ms. Maxwell's spouse, family, and friends attesting to her character and their willingness to serve as sureties for her bail.
Temporarily sealed Opinion & Order
The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties.
Evidence related to the case
An affidavit from Susan Brune was put forth as evidence at a hearing.
Unspecified
A note from Juror No. 1 was received, which prompted Theresa Trzskoma to have doubts and begin an investigation.
Letters of support
A series of letters submitted by the Defendant's friends and family to support her claim of having significant ties to the United States and to attest to her character.
Letter of support
A specific letter of support from the Defendant's spouse, whose identity was previously withheld, describing their 'quiet family life' before her arrest.
Pretrial Services Report
A report which states that at the time of her arrest, the Defendant was not living with her spouse and claimed to be getting divorced.
Insufficiency of asset statement for bail package
The Court advised Defense counsel that the Defendant's asset statement was 'cursory' and insufficient to support a bail package because it was not verified and lacked details on expenses, indebtedness, or liabilities.
Juror qualification and background
Maxwell contends that had Juror 50 answered the questionnaire accurately, it would have provided a basis for a for-cause challenge.
Conviction criteria for Count Four
The jury submitted a note asking whether they could find Ms. Maxwell guilty on Count Four based solely on her intent for Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, without concluding she intended for Jane to be abused in New York.
Delivery of Defendant's legal mail at MDC
The document references a letter from the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) to the Court concerning the delivery of her legal mail at the MDC. The specific date of the letter is not mentioned, but it is docketed as Dkt. No. 346.
Limiting instruction for Witness-3's anticipated testimony
The Government submitted a letter motion to the court regarding a limiting instruction for the testimony of Witness-3.
Client's fund transfers
The government's opening and reply briefs are mentioned, in which they discuss the client's transfers of funds.
Client's banking
A submission from the government is referenced which mentioned a bank that subsequently dropped the speaker's client.
Surprise at receiving the defendant's filing.
Mr. Rohrbach mentions a letter his side sent, which indicated they were surprised to receive a filing from the defendant.
Jury instructions for Count Four
Mr. Everdell discusses a note from the jury which indicates they are confused about the instructions for Count Four and whether they can convict M. Maxwell based solely on events in New Mexico.
Declining invitation to deliberate
The jury sent a note to the judge declining the offer to deliberate on the day following the court session.
Jury deliberation schedule
The jury sent a note (Court Exhibit 18) asking for clarification on whether they are required to continue deliberations every day, including 12/31 and 1/1/2022, until a verdict is reached.
Jury Deliberation Schedule
The Court drafted a note to the jury asking if they wish to continue deliberations on "Thursday, December 23rd" and to specify the times if they do.
Request for Testimonies
The jury sent a note to the court requesting the testimonies of "Jane, Wong, Kate".
Dismissal and timing
The Court acknowledges receiving a note from the jury regarding their dismissal time for the evening and the timing for the following day.
Unknown
The document mentions 'The Court received the attached letters via email' but provides no further details.
Case related matters
The Court received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties, which it deemed procedurally improper or irrelevant and stated they would not be considered or docketed.
Request for transcript
The jury sent a note to the court requesting the transcript of David Rodgers.
Support for David
A letter cited to show David prioritizes character development over winning and has a measured coaching approach.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity