Courtroom
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00032483.pdf
A court argument calendar for October 13, 2020, at the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse in New York. The schedule lists two cases involving Ghislaine Maxwell: one civil case involving Julie Brown and the Miami Herald (misspelled 'Hearld'), and one case involving the United States of America. The arguments are to be heard by a panel of judges consisting of Cabranes, Pooler, and Raggi.
EFTA00032482.pdf
This document is a forwarded email thread from October 9, 2020. The email contains attachments referencing court calendars (Argument and Motions) for October 13, 2020, in Courtroom 1703. The recipients of the forwarded message include individuals associated with the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS).
EFTA00029582.pdf
An email from the SDNY Attorney's Office providing press guidance for the U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial dated November 23, 2021. The document outlines privacy measures for victim witnesses testifying under pseudonyms, details the schedule for the final pretrial conference before Judge Alison Nathan, and provides instructions for media access to exhibits and credentialing.
EFTA00029418.pdf
This document contains an email chain from November 28, 2021, among Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The primary email announces the opening statements for the trial *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* scheduled for the following morning. The email includes logistical details about courtroom assignments and a strong statement distinguishing the SDNY's commitment to justice from Florida prosecutors (likely referencing the 2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement), emphasizing the intent to hold Maxwell accountable for sexually exploiting underage girls in 1994.
EFTA00015659.pdf
This document is an internal DOJ email chain from November 28, 2021, the day before opening statements in the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. A senior prosecutor (Assistant US Attorney) sends a motivational email to SDNY staff contrasting their willingness to prosecute historical sex crimes with prosecutors in Florida, outlining the logistics for the trial (courtrooms, overflow rooms), and stating that Maxwell exploited underage girls. Subsequent emails in the chain involve staff coordinating attendance and seat reservations for the opening arguments.
EFTA00014899.pdf
This document is an internal DOJ email chain from November 2021 regarding the opening of the trial *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. An Assistant US Attorney from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) announces the trial schedule and logistics (courtroom 40 Foley, room 318) to colleagues. The email notably criticizes Florida prosecutors (likely referencing the earlier Epstein plea deal) for being afraid to prosecute historical sex crimes from 1994, contrasting them with the SDNY's resolve to hold Maxwell accountable for sexually exploiting underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and the judge. Attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, who is present in the courtroom. Sternheim contends that the attorney's role in the 'Epstein Fund' and the fact that he wrote a book about the witness's story are pertinent facts for the jury to consider during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018134.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a moment where Ms. Comey addresses the court regarding display screens, followed by the Judge instructing Ms. Williams to bring in the jury. A witness, Mr. Alessi (likely Juan Alessi, Epstein's former house manager), is then greeted and told to take his seat.
DOJ-OGR-00018133.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a logistical discussion between a judge and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca). The main topic is how to display video evidence to the jury without it being visible at the counsel's tables. The timing of this technical arrangement is coordinated around a planned 10:30 morning break and the upcoming cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00017825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Menninger (Defense) regarding a witness named 'Jane.' The government requests permission for Jane to leave the district to return to her family while remaining available for potential recall, while the defense raises concerns regarding the witness's exposure to media coverage of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about a past lawsuit allegedly filed by her and her mother against her teacher for pulling her hair, which Jane denies knowing about. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, discusses the presentation of certified court exhibits (J-7, J-8, J-9) with the judge to clarify the record.
DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.
DOJ-OGR-00014833.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on August 22, 2022, capturing a statement from a defendant during their sentencing. The speaker apologizes directly to the victims for their pain, hoping their conviction and incarceration bring closure. They also reflect that Jeffrey Epstein should have faced justice years prior and lament the personal relationships they have lost due to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00014813.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing a victim impact statement directed at Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker describes Maxwell as a manipulative and cruel person who used kindness to exploit others. The statement emphasizes the speaker's solidarity with other victims ('sisters'), their refusal to remain afraid, and their determination to model empowerment for their daughter.
DOJ-OGR-00008628.jpg
This document is Page 90 of 167 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 3', which strictly prohibits jurors from communicating about the case via any electronic means or social media (listing specific platforms like Facebook and Twitter) and bans outside research. The instruction emphasizes that deliberations must occur only within the jury room and verdicts must be based solely on evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00008621.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a legal case, filed on December 18, 2021. A judge is instructing the jury on the procedures for reaching and reporting a verdict, emphasizing that it must be unanimous and that deliberations must be kept confidential. The judge also reminds the jurors to be courteous to one another and announces a brief sidebar conference with counsel before the case is formally submitted to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008619.jpg
This document is a legal instruction (No. 59) for a jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the procedures for jury deliberation, including the election of a foreperson, the formal process for communicating with the court via written notes, and rules regarding the use of personal notes taken during the trial. The instructions emphasize that the foreperson acts as a communicator without extra authority and that all jurors' recollections of evidence are paramount.
DOJ-OGR-00008603.jpg
This document is page 65 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions regarding the evaluation of witness credibility, specifically highlighting how to weigh the testimony of a witness with a prior felony conviction (highlighted text). It also instructs the jury on the use of pseudonyms or first names to protect the privacy of certain witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008599.jpg
This document is Jury Instruction No. 42, titled "Direct and Circumstantial Evidence," filed on December 18, 2021. It explains the two types of evidence, providing a hypothetical example to illustrate circumstantial evidence. The instruction emphasizes that both direct and circumstantial evidence hold equal value, and the jury must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00008548.jpg
This document is page 10 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 3, which strictly prohibits jurors from using social media, the internet, or electronic devices to communicate about the case or conduct outside research during deliberations. The instruction emphasizes that the verdict must be based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00008536.jpg
This document page contains the final jury instructions from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on December 17, 2021. The judge instructs the jury that their verdict must be unanimous, explains the role of the foreperson in filling out the verdict form and notifying the marshal, and urges courtesy during deliberations. The transcript concludes with the judge pausing proceedings for a brief sidebar conference with counsel and the court reporter before officially submitting the case to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008519.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a legal case filed on December 17, 2021. The text directs the jury on how to assess witness testimony, emphasizing that they should use their own common sense and experience, and are not required to accept unchallenged testimony. The judge also instructs the jury not to be influenced by the fact that some witnesses are using pseudonyms to protect their privacy from media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00008515.jpg
This document is page 59 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains Jury Instruction No. 42, which explains the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence using an analogy about rain and umbrellas. The instruction concludes by reminding the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity