Trove
Sign In Sign Up

THE COURT

Person
Mentions
4828
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
2363
Also known as:
THE COURT, MR. DONALDSON
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00017990.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi. The witness confirms that Government Exhibit 297 is an accurate layout of the second floor of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence. Following this testimony and with no objection, the court admits the exhibit into evidence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017987.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The witness describes the interior layout of a property, specifically the front entrance, foyer, and the 'lake room' (living room), noting the location of Mr. Epstein's desk, stereo equipment, and books.

Court transcript (testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017986.jpg

This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of a trial on August 10, 2022. It details the resumption of the direct examination of witness Juan Patricio Alessi by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on Government Exhibit 298, specifically identifying a room labeled 'foyer' using a touch screen.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017985.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge dismisses the jury for a 45-minute luncheon recess and provides procedural instructions to the counsel, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the use of a touch screen for the official record.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017979.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Alessi) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case US v. Maxwell. The witness, Mr. Alessi, testifies that he met Ghislaine Maxwell around 1991 while working for Jeffrey Epstein and interacted with her on a daily basis until he left in 2002. During the proceeding, Alessi identifies Maxwell in the courtroom, noting she is wearing a black sweater.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017962.jpg

This document is page 89 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding psychological concepts including confabulation, delayed disclosure, secondary gain, and malingering. Ms. Pomerantz repeatedly objects to the questioning, and the Court sustains most objections.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017961.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, where the defense asks about the impact of traumatic brain injury, alcohol, and controlled substances on memory recall and the concept of 'confabulation.' Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) successfully objects to several questions regarding memory and abuse disclosure, but an objection regarding the definition of confabulation is overruled.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017956.jpg

Court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt captures a procedural discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz regarding a binder of materials (including Daubert hearing testimony and '3500 material') for witness Dr. Rocchio. Following the discussion, the jury enters, and Mr. Pagliuca begins his cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017953.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admissibility of a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and victim blaming. The Judge rules that the proposed question is 'beyond the scope' of the direct examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017952.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features a dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the testimony of Dr. Rocchio, specifically discussing the concept of 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and 'hindsight bias.' The attorney argues that this testimony is appropriate to explain how a perpetrator deceives those around them.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017951.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses the testimony of Dr. Rocchio. He focuses on the concept of "grooming the environment" and references an article she wrote, "Stages of Sexual Grooming," intending to question her about "hindsight bias phenomena." The Court interrupts to question whether the contents of the entire article are within the scope of the direct examination.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between THE COURT and MS. POMERANTZ regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination. The conversation centers on whether to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on certain opinions and the Court's qualification of another expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court sets boundaries for cross-examination, emphasizing that it will not permit the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017946.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the permissible scope of cross-examination for a psychology expert witness. The discussion focuses on the concept of 'delayed disclosure' in sexual abuse cases and whether the defense can question the expert about alternative reasons for such delays beyond what was presented in direct testimony.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017945.jpg

This document is page 72 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the scope of cross-examination for an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio. The defense (Pagliuca) argues that topics such as confabulation, the process of storing memories, and the effect of alcohol on memory are relevant to explaining delayed disclosure.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge regarding a question posed to a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The judge clarifies why a specific question about grooming and sexual gratification was objected to and ultimately precluded, citing the narrow basis for excluding testimony on the theory of 'grooming by proxy'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017941.jpg

This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a legal argument between attorney Ms. Pomerantz and the Judge regarding the admissibility of questions related to 'grooming' and 'sexual gratification.' The Judge references a 'Daubert context' (expert witness admissibility) and compares the testimony to a 'pimp-prostitute context.'

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017940.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, and the judge ('THE COURT') after the jury has been excused for a break. Ms. Pomerantz seeks to clarify the record regarding the scope of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, stating the government's understanding that his opinion on the presence of a third party was excluded, and distinguishing this from the defense's theory of 'grooming by proxy'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017935.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who discusses the commonality of delayed disclosure of sexual abuse in clinical and forensic practices. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question regarding the witness being the first person patients disclose abuse to, but the objection is overruled by the Court.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017928.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, regarding the factors that place a child at increased risk of sexual abuse. The judge sustains an objection and strikes a portion of the testimony before Dr. Rocchio begins to detail personal risk factors such as prior victimization, health issues, and disadvantaged circumstances.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$162,555,000.00
16 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$162,555,000.00
16 total transactions
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
As Sender
409
As Recipient
1009
Total
1418

Sentencing recommendation

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Requesting an above-guideline sentence to hold the defendant accountable and send a message that no one is above the law.

Statement
N/A
Communication Source

Opposition to December 21 Motion

From: Manhattan District Att...
To: THE COURT

Stated they were not in a position to notify victims as they were not the prosecuting agency.

Affidavit
N/A
Communication Source

Unknown

From: One of the witnesses
To: THE COURT

Letter submitted to the Court which the defense argues should have no legal weight in bail analysis.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Transportation / Instruction

From: jury (implied)
To: THE COURT

A note from the jury regarding transportation, which the defense finds clear but the court finds confusing.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Voir Dire / Background check

From: THE COURT
To: Juror No. 50

Questioning regarding age, residence, education, and employment history.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Arguments that Juror 50's trauma affected his ability to serve.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Conditions of Confinement

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Details on material changes to confinement, access to legal materials, and search frequency

Written status updates
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: THE COURT
To: prospective jurors

Questions to determine impartiality and background.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Guidelines Argument

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Argument regarding the interpretation of 'dangerous sex offenders' guidelines and background commentary.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on conviction basis

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Implied note asking if they can convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Amicus Brief

From: Amicus filer
To: THE COURT

Any authorized amicus brief must be emailed to the Court for docketing within one week of the granting of the motion.

Email
N/A
Communication Source

Schedule

From: Jurors
To: THE COURT

We would like to end today at 5 p.m., deliberate from

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Identity/Note

From: THE COURT
To: Counsel/Parties

Transfer of unredacted note to counsel for review and redaction.

Note/electronic copy
N/A
Communication Source

Scheduling and Sealing

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe updates the court that the prosecution anticipates resting their case 'this week' and discusses sealing a document containing pseudonym identities.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Reply Brief

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Legal filing containing information about the defendant's evasion tactics.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Questions or Verdict

From: Foreperson
To: THE COURT

Protocol established: Requests must be in writing, signed by foreperson, given to Marshals.

Written note
N/A
Communication Source

Presentence Report Objections

From: THE COURT
To: Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell

Discussion regarding factual accuracy and objections to the presentence report (PSR) prior to sentencing.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Submission regarding jury instructions

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Mr. Everdell mentions he raised the issue in a letter submission or orally.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty under the second element if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Reconsideration of Court's response

From: the defense
To: THE COURT

Seeking reconsideration and raising possibility of constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. Asking for additional instruction.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Letters on 52

From: Counsel (implied)
To: THE COURT

Letters submitted to the judge regarding issue 52.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Question about elements/aiding and abetting

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

A note sent by the jury asking for clarification, interpreted differently by prosecution and defense.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Intention to assert Fifth Amendment privilege

From: Juror 50's counsel
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 intends to plead the Fifth.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Followup letter regarding jury's last note

From: the defense
To: THE COURT

Taking a slightly different approach to the jury's last note than what was argued in court.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury inquiry

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Referenced as 'the jury's last note'.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search