Courtroom
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00013271.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about scheduling witnesses for an upcoming hearing. The primary issue raised is a request by attorney Ms. Menninger for the court to order a witness named Jane and her attorney not to discuss her testimony with another subpoenaed witness, who is Jane's younger sibling. The judge also proposes several dates for the hearing to avoid interfering with jury time.
DOJ-OGR-00013018.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between attorney Ms. Moe and the judge regarding a conversation between two siblings, one of whom was a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe explains that one sibling described her court testimony as an 'unpleasant experience' to the other. The judge inquires about whether the government had instructed witnesses not to discuss testimony, and Ms. Moe recounts her own conversation with Jane's attorney on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the rules of witness sequestration, specifically concerning communications between two witnesses, Jane and Brian, who are implied to be family members. The judge questions the legality and propriety of sequestered witnesses being provided with trial transcripts, testing the boundaries of the sequestration order.
DOJ-OGR-00009243.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Conrad. The questioning focuses on Conrad's defiance of a previous court order from Judge Pauley to testify, her background as a suspended lawyer, and her mental health. Conrad is evasive, repeatedly stating she is not a psychologist, and provides minimal answers, including claiming she only takes "Water" as medication.
DOJ-OGR-00009239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of witness Catherine M. Conrad, who initially pleads the Fifth Amendment regarding her prior testimony from March 2011. After being granted use immunity by the court, Conrad admits under questioning that her previous testimony as a prospective juror contained both omissions and lies.
DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Daugertas. The transcript details a legal argument regarding a request to close the courtroom for the testimony of a witness, Catherine Conrad, due to sensitive information about her alcohol dependency and disciplinary proceedings. The court denies the request, citing prior disclosures of the information and the defendants' right to a public proceeding. The transcript also reveals that Ms. Conrad intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, and counsel has submitted an application to compel her testimony with immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00009180.jpg
This document is a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) containing a printout of a Daily Mail article. The article interviews a juror named 'Scotty' who helped convict Ghislaine Maxwell; he discusses sharing his own past sexual abuse with fellow jurors to explain gaps in victim testimony. The document also notes speculation that this disclosure could be grounds for an appeal by Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009100.jpg
This document is page 128 (filed on 02/24/22) of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records Judge Nathan dismissing Juror No. 49 and beginning the questioning of Juror No. 50. The judge instructs Juror No. 50 on the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell and strictly prohibits consuming media related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009076.jpg
This document is page 9 of a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they have no feelings or opinions about evidence from law enforcement searches or the use of expert witnesses that would affect their impartiality. The juror also affirms their willingness and ability to follow the court's instruction to avoid all media and any discussion of the case outside the courtroom until their jury service is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00017358.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the moment a verdict is about to be read. The judge calls the court to order, brings in the jury, and confirms with the foreperson that a verdict has been reached. The judge then begins to read the verdict, starting with 'Count One: Guilty.'
DOJ-OGR-00017335.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe addresses the Court in the absence of the jury, first noting a safety caution regarding an open door to the jury room. She then argues against a defense letter filed earlier that morning, stating it repeats arguments regarding jury instructions that the Court had already rejected the previous day.
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00017275.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the final moments of the trial before jury deliberations began, including the dismissal of alternate jurors, the swearing-in of a U.S. Marshal to safeguard deliberations, and the official start of deliberations at 4:49 p.m. Ms. Williams is identified as a court official managing logistics for the jurors and exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell) about the procedures for jury deliberations. The judge outlines the schedule, including a 9:00 a.m. start time, and clarifies that exhibits will be provided automatically to the jury. The discussion also covers the roles of court staff like the deputy and marshal in managing the jury process.
DOJ-OGR-00017271.jpg
This document is page 250 of 257 from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The brief text records the presiding official asking the courtroom to remain quiet for a final sidebar during the 'Charge' phase of the proceedings. The page contains significant whitespace as the proceedings continued on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00017268.jpg
This document is a transcript of a judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge provides final instructions before deliberations, covering communication protocols with the court, the proper use of personal notes, and the jury's duty to weigh the evidence. The core task outlined is for the jury to determine if the government has proven its case against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00017252.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically jury instructions from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The text, labeled "Instruction No. 42," defines and differentiates between direct and circumstantial evidence for the jury. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate circumstantial evidence, involving inferring rain from observing people entering a courtroom with a wet umbrella and raincoat.
DOJ-OGR-00013898.jpg
This document is a page from the direct examination transcript of Ms. Espinosa during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Espinosa testifies about maintaining contact with Maxwell after leaving her position as an assistant at 'Epstein & Co,' specifically exchanging holiday wishes and requesting professional references. The witness also confirms Maxwell's birth date (December 25, 1961) and positively identifies Maxwell in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.
DOJ-OGR-00013845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and attorneys Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger. The conversation centers on procedural issues for witnesses, specifically the legal basis for granting anonymity and confirming that defense witnesses will be subject to Rule 615, which requires them to remain outside the courtroom when not testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00013770.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of witness A. Farmer (likely Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, questions Farmer about an incident of sexual abuse in a movie theater and introduces a document (Exhibit AF-14), which is a release form signed by Farmer in October 2020. The testimony confirms that Farmer received $1.5 million from the Victims Compensation Program.
DOJ-OGR-00013768.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It documents the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger regarding her attorneys from Boies Schiller and their involvement in the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund. Ms. Pomerantz objects to the line of questioning citing hearsay and privilege, while the Court instructs the defense to establish a foundation for the questions.
DOJ-OGR-00013763.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on when Farmer hired legal counsel, establishing that she spoke to attorneys in 2016 but formally hired the Boies Schiller firm (specifically Ms. McCawley) prior to meeting with the government in September 2019. The text confirms these attorneys filed both a civil lawsuit and documents for the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund on her behalf.
DOJ-OGR-00013683.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, A. Farmer, by an attorney, Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Farmer's use of a personal journal to refresh their memory before a meeting with the government in September 2019, and references specific pages of the journal previously introduced as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness named Annie Farmer identifies the defendant, Maxwell, in the courtroom and testifies that Maxwell gave her a massage when she was 16 years old. At that time, Farmer was living in Arizona with her mother and sister, Ashley.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity