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

Unknown question regarding instructions

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Jury sent a note; Judge is responding by referring them to instruction number 21.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Note

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

So I received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the instruction.

Court instruction
N/A
Communication Source

Impartiality

From: THE COURT
To: Juror No. 50

Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.

Court examination
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on charges

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Indicated confusion regarding Count Four and jurisdiction.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Supplemental Instruction for Count Four

From: the defense
To: THE COURT

Proposed language clarifying that intent must relate to activity within New York state.

Proposed instruction
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 270

From: Government officials
To: THE COURT

States that MDC staff conduct flashlight checks of all inmates as a matter of course.

Response
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 191

From: Boies Schiller Flexner...
To: THE COURT

Regarding the subpoena served on BSF.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Question regarding liability and facts

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

A note posing a question that led to debate over accomplice liability and flight arrangements.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Instructions

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Requesting instruction on 'purpose of travel' and arguing lack of evidence for return flight arrangement.

Legal argument/request
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection / Voir Dire

From: THE COURT
To: juror

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.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Screening

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Document Juror 50 is seeking a copy of.

Jury questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Note

From: Jury Foreperson
To: THE COURT

A note signed by the foreperson that attorneys are discussing; requires redaction of signature.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 46

From: Government officials
To: THE COURT

Publicly available letter discussing the issue.

Docketed letter
N/A
Communication Source

Regarding subpoena

From: Boies Schiller Flexner...
To: THE COURT

Referenced as Dkt. No. 191, mentioning the request for a victim's diary.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection

From: Juror No. 50
To: THE COURT

False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.

Questionnaire/testimony
N/A
Communication Source

Motion to Unseal

From: Dag
To: THE COURT

A 3.5 page motion to unseal grand jury materials filed without supporting docs.

Legal motion
N/A
Communication Source

Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. / Maxwell Br.

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Arguments regarding Juror 50's bias.

Legal brief
N/A
Communication Source

Format inquiry

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Missing Jurors

From: Ms. Comey
To: THE COURT

Asking if the Court has attempted to call the missing jurors.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to intervene

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Previews argument regarding Juror 50's motion, claiming it is a discovery request.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Initial Bail Hearing

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Proffer that testimony would be corroborated by 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence'.

Transcript
N/A
Communication Source

Request for Evidence

From: Jury/Foreperson
To: THE COURT

"We would like the FBI deposition 3505-005 referred to by the defense during the cross-examination of Carolyn."

Jury note/request
N/A
Communication Source

Juror Screening

From: THE COURT
To: Juror No. 50

Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.

Questionnaire/interview
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Guidelines / Supervisory Role

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence proves Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, satisfying the requirement for an organizer/leader enhancement.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Documents containing answers regarding prior experience with sexual assault.

Questionnaire
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