THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017636.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger questions a witness named Jane about a letter of recommendation included in her application, specifically inquiring about its content, the qualifications of the unnamed recommender who was on the board of the Palm Beach School of the Arts, and whether Jane solicited the letter. The Court oversees the exchange, which also references government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017633.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' by defense attorney Ms. Menninger. The testimony focuses on establishing Jane's age (16) during a specific summer and reviewing Exhibit J-3, which is identified as an application where Jane answered a question regarding scholarship or financial aid.
DOJ-OGR-00017632.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' (testifying under a pseudonym) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Ms. Menninger questions Jane regarding her applications to Interlochen, specifically asking about her knowledge of financial aid and scholarships, and clarifying her age (13 to 17) during the three summers she attended. The Judge interrupts at the end to clarify if a statement made by the attorney was a question.
DOJ-OGR-00017631.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017630.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.
DOJ-OGR-00017628.jpg
This page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details a discussion between the judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Moe updates the court on resolving prior disagreements, requests a sidebar regarding a witness issue, and flags anticipated Rule 408 objections regarding defense exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding whether to discuss certain topics at a sidebar or to confer with a witness's attorney first. The Judge instructs the counsel to confer with the witness's attorney before bringing the matters to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. The parties are debating the timing and method for resolving two or three outstanding issues, weighing the efficiency of handling them immediately against the preference for a sidebar and the dependency of one issue on upcoming witness testimony. The conversation occurs while they are waiting for the jurors to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00017623.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding, filed on August 10, 2022, discussing a witness's statements regarding her past residences and applications. The conversation involves attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, and the Court, focusing on discrepancies or clarifications needed about the witness's timeline, particularly her living situation before and after meeting Epstein and moving to New York. The nature of a '302' document, described as a type-up of agents' notes, is also clarified.
DOJ-OGR-00017622.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.
DOJ-OGR-00017617.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that a photograph of a witness's house was not disclosed earlier because it was intended solely as impeachment material to contradict the witness's testimony, rather than evidence for the case-in-chief. The Judge and Mr. Everdell discuss Rule 16 discovery obligations, with the Judge noting that prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach likely agrees with the procedural distinction.
DOJ-OGR-00017611.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place without the jury present, where the Judge discusses procedural issues involving Rule 16/608 regarding impeachment evidence and the protection of witness identities via pseudonyms. The legal teams (Menninger/Everdell for defense, Comey/Rohrbach for prosecution) determine who will argue the specific legal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00015070.jpg
This document is page 9 of a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 29, 2025, regarding the unsealing of Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials. The Government confirms it has reviewed the transcripts and notified all but one relevant victim (whom they could not reach) about the motion to unseal. Additionally, the Government is submitting indices, transcripts, and proposed redactions to the Court *ex parte* and under seal to protect victim identities.
DOJ-OGR-00015031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the scientific basis for Rocchio's expert opinions, specifically the studies relied upon and their potential rate of error. Rocchio states he does not rely on a single study and explains that a 'pure error rate' is not typically calculated in social sciences, instead referencing measures like inter-rater reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00015030.jpg
This document is page 154 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, who is testifying about the scientific validity of reasons for false allegations, such as lying, intoxication, and psychiatric disorders. Rocchio states that while false allegations occur, they represent a very small minority of cases and notes a lack of specific scientific research linking the suggested factors as predictors.
DOJ-OGR-00015026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness, Rocchio, about a study the witness relied upon. Pagliuca challenges the study's credibility by pointing out that a key phrase, "right away," is undefined, and Rocchio admits to not having reviewed all the underlying data or cited references in the summary article.
DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00015020.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Rocchio regarding 'Government Exhibit 6,' a study analyzing delayed reporting of psychological issues. Pagliuca attempts to establish that the current case does not involve allegations of delayed reporting by males, leading to an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz on the grounds that the witness does not know the specific details of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00015019.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It documents the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding 'Exhibit 6,' a study on barriers to and facilitators of delayed disclosure in abuse cases. The witness defends their opinion as being based on the totality of their professional experience rather than a single article.
DOJ-OGR-00015018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a 2016/2017 scientific article about the difficulty of identifying predatory behaviors and child molesters ahead of time. The dialogue includes a debate on 'hindsight bias' in characterizing grooming behaviors and concludes with the admission of Defendant's Exhibit B into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00015016.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. Attorney Pagliuca successfully moves to admit Defendant's Exhibit A into evidence with no objection from opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz. Mr. Pagliuca then begins to question the witness, addressed as 'Doctor', about another piece of evidence, Exhibit B.
DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.
DOJ-OGR-00015012.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It features an exchange between the Court and a witness named Rocchio regarding the scientific consensus on 'grooming strategies' and 'trauma bonding' in the context of sex work. The witness asserts that the concept of offenders using tactics to develop relationships with victims is well-established in peer-reviewed literature.
| 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 |
Unknown question regarding instructions
Jury sent a note; Judge is responding by referring them to instruction number 21.
Response to Note
So I received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the instruction.
Impartiality
Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.
Clarification on charges
Indicated confusion regarding Count Four and jurisdiction.
Supplemental Instruction for Count Four
Proposed language clarifying that intent must relate to activity within New York state.
Dkt. No. 270
States that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course.
Dkt. No. 191
Regarding the subpoena served on BSF.
Question regarding liability and facts
A note posing a question that led to debate over accomplice liability and flight arrangements.
Jury Instructions
Requesting instruction on 'purpose of travel' and arguing lack of evidence for return flight arrangement.
Jury Selection / Voir Dire
The Court questions a juror about their exposure to case information, availability for a six-week trial starting Nov 29, and familiarity with lists of names and entities involved in the case.
Juror Screening
Document Juror 50 is seeking a copy of.
Jury Note
A note signed by the foreperson that attorneys are discussing; requires redaction of signature.
Dkt. No. 46
Publicly available letter discussing the issue.
Regarding subpoena
Referenced as Dkt. No. 191, mentioning the request for a victim's diary.
Jury Selection
False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.
Motion to Unseal
A 3.5 page motion to unseal grand jury materials filed without supporting docs.
Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. / Maxwell Br.
Arguments regarding Juror 50's bias.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
Missing Jurors
Asking if the Court has attempted to call the missing jurors.
Argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to intervene
Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.
Initial Bail Hearing
Proffer that testimony would be corroborated by 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence'.
Request for Evidence
"We would like the FBI deposition 3505-005 referred to by the defense during the cross-examination of Carolyn."
Juror Screening
Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.
Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role
Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.
Jury Questionnaire
Documents containing answers regarding prior experience with sexual assault.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity