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-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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript (trial proceedings)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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."

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript / legal proceeding
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript (criminal case)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court filing / legal order (evidentiary ruling)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

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

Fairness and impartiality

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Replied by rote in the affirmative regarding fairness; provided explanations for incorrect questionnaire answers.

Testimony/inquiry
N/A
Communication Source

Briefing Schedule

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Proposal to write a letter proposing a schedule after conferring.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Question regarding Count Four and the second element.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 completed a questionnaire regarding his background.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Defendant's primary sentencing submission

From: defense
To: THE COURT

Submission reviewed by the court

Submission
N/A
Communication Source

Cross-examination procedure

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.

Procedural discussion
N/A
Communication Source

Argument regarding travel purpose

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Jury instructions query

From: THE COURT
To: Mr. Everdell

Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification of legal standard

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Schedule

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Note stating the jury is ready to leave at 5:30.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Deliberation Instructions

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

Verbal instructions regarding adjournment, prohibition on outside communication, and schedule for the following morning.

Instruction
N/A
Communication Source

State of Arizona's argument

From: Attorney General
To: THE COURT

Argued presence at the scene was essential but conceded lack of proof of intent to kill.

Oral argument
N/A
Communication Source

Defense Rebuttal

From: Narrator
To: THE COURT

Argued brothers were not present, sent to get water, and lacked intent.

Oral argument (rebuttal)
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50's responses during jury selection, specifically regarding prior experience with sexual assault.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Juror 50 Mem.

From: Juror 50's counsel
To: THE COURT

States Juror 50 does not recall answering questions regarding sexual assault.

Legal memorandum
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 rushed through the questionnaire and provided inaccurate answers regarding prior experiences.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Assessment of Bias

From: THE COURT
To: Juror 50

The Court asked Juror 50 questions regarding prior sexual abuse and ability to be impartial.

Hearing
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 568

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Regarding press outlets and Juror 50's interviews; requested a hearing.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 569

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 570

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Schedule

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Counsel expresses concern that the jury might rush to judgment to avoid returning in January if the schedule bumps up against the Christmas holiday.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Scheduling Concerns

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Open issues

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Court expects to hear from government by letter by 2:00.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Objection/Questions

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Questions posed by defense counsel regarding Juror 50.

Letter submission
N/A
Communication Source

Request for items and definitions

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Request for Post-Its, paperboard, highlighters, 'Matt's transcript', and a definition of 'enticement'.

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