Courtroom
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00013588.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the adjournment of a trial. The judge informs the jury that an attorney involved in the case has fallen ill, possibly with COVID, necessitating a break in the proceedings. The court is recessed for the day with the intention of resuming the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00013383.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The witness testifies about first meeting Ms. Maxwell in July 1991, describes her physical appearance and personality at the time, and states she was 'number two' below Jeffrey Epstein. The witness then positively identifies Ms. Maxwell, the defendant, in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00010766.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 29, 2022. Juror ID 2 affirms that their impartiality would not be affected by evidence from law enforcement searches or testimony from expert witnesses. The juror also confirms their willingness and ability to follow instructions to avoid all media and outside discussion of the case until their jury service is complete.
DOJ-OGR-00010576.jpg
This document is page 41 of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details the long-term psychological harm inflicted on victims, citing expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio and personal statements from victims 'Jane' and 'Annie.' The text highlights the victims' struggles with self-worth, trust, and suicidal ideation resulting from the abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010300.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a juror, identified as Juror 50, did not deliberately lie on a questionnaire but rather made an "honest mistake." A hearing established that the juror was not biased, approached his service with an open mind, and would not have been dismissed for cause even if he had answered correctly. Therefore, the document concludes that the defendant's motion for relief based on the juror's alleged misconduct should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00010253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 11, 2022. It captures a discussion between the court, Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell regarding a prior interview with an unnamed male subject. The conversation centers on clarifying what was said during that interview, particularly the subject's reaction to personal questions, and the court ultimately rules that the subject's motivation for speaking to the press after a trial is not relevant to the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010235.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the cross-examination of a witness regarding their completion of a questionnaire. The witness admits to skimming questions and skipping sections based on 'if yes' prompts, claiming they were distracted or rushing, while the interrogator challenges the consistency of this claim against the witness's apparent adherence to instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00010232.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It captures the questioning of a witness about their answers on a jury selection questionnaire. The examiner probes whether the witness, who has a history of sexual abuse, intentionally provided inaccurate answers to get selected for the jury, which the witness denies. The witness also recounts the timeline of being summoned for jury duty and filling out the questionnaire on November 4th.
DOJ-OGR-00010016.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms being present for every day of a trial, having a direct view of the jury box, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being attentive and taking a lot of notes.
DOJ-OGR-00009999.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, filed on March 23, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune confirms that their legal team had arranged for and used internet and e-mail access in the courtroom throughout a trial, including during jury deliberations. Team members Lori Edelstein and Theresa Trzaskoma are identified as having used laptops in court for this purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00009951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It details the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who admits to perjuring herself during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The questioning focuses on her awareness of potential perjury charges, her receipt of use immunity, and her motivations for wanting to be on the jury, which she explains was for the 'interesting trial experience' and to get 'back in the swing of things' after a suspension.
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses a hypothetical scenario involving 'Juror 50' and whether a past history of sexual abuse, if disclosed, would have led to a successful challenge for cause. The author argues that the Court would not have automatically dismissed the juror, citing its handling of eight other jurors with similar experiences where follow-up questions were used to confirm impartiality. Because Juror 50 did not disclose any such history, the Government now believes a limited hearing is warranted to ask these questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009767.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for Juror 50 in case 2:20-cr-00030-ABN, filed on March 24, 2022. The juror indicates they have no feelings or opinions about law enforcement searches or expert witnesses that would affect their impartiality. The juror also affirms they have no reservations about their ability to follow strict instructions to avoid all media and not discuss the case outside the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00009487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. An attorney is arguing before the judge regarding the conduct of the 'Brune firm,' suggesting they 'dropped the ball' regarding a revelation about someone with the 'same name' rather than engaging in a deliberate strategy. The speaker notes that this error might result in a 'very long trial' having to be done again, implying a discussion about a mistrial or retrial motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009337.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. Brune testifies about being present for an entire trial, having a clear view of the jury, and observing a specific juror, Ms. Conrad, as being very attentive and taking copious notes. The document is part of case file 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009320.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5716) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness, identified as Brune, is being questioned about the legal team's use of technology and personnel during the trial, specifically mentioning Donna Kane from Decision Quest regarding graphics. The testimony confirms that team members Theresa Trzaskoma and Lori Edelstein had laptops and internet/email access in the courtroom during voir dire and jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009282.jpg
This document is a page from an alphabetical index of a court transcript for the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It lists keywords from 'counsels' to 'deliberating' along with the corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in the full transcript. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters and is part of a larger legal file, as indicated by the case and document numbers at the top.
DOJ-OGR-00033049.jpg
A transcript page from a legal proceeding recording a heated exchange between attorneys Mr. Leopold and Mr. Tein. Leopold accuses Tein of repetitive questioning, while Tein asks Leopold to stop yelling. The argument escalates when Leopold mistakenly calls Tein 'Lewis,' leading to an insult from Leopold suggesting Tein made no impression during a previous three-day evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00014742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court reconvenes to hear the jury's verdict, and the judge instructs the courtroom on proper conduct. After confirming with the foreperson that a verdict has been reached, the judge begins to read it, announcing a 'Guilty' verdict on 'Count One'.
DOJ-OGR-00014692.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion regarding the legal definition of the word "entice" and a procedural matter of marking a note as a court exhibit. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises a concern that Ms. Maxwell was provided an N95 mask but restricted to wearing it only in the courtroom, to which the Judge clarifies the rule applies to the whole courthouse.
DOJ-OGR-00014654.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a judge's final instructions to a jury before they begin deliberations. The judge dismisses the alternate jurors and outlines the procedures for the 12 deliberating jurors, including how to communicate with the court, before officially sending them to deliberate at 4:49 p.m.
DOJ-OGR-00014652.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge (THE COURT) outlines the logistical procedures for jury deliberations to the involved parties (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell). The discussion covers the daily schedule for deliberations, the materials the jury will be given (instructions, verdict form, exhibits), and the roles of court staff in managing the process.
DOJ-OGR-00014650.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified speaker asks everyone in the courtroom to be quiet for a final sidebar. The transcript was prepared by Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00014649.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the jury charge in the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The judge instructs the jury on the requirement for a unanimous verdict, the protocol for filling out the verdict form via the foreperson, and general conduct regarding courtesy during deliberations. The transcript concludes with the judge calling for a sidebar with counsel and the court reporter before submitting the case to the jury.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity