| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-14 | Bail hearing | The Initial Bail Hearing for Maxwell, where Judge Nathan heard oral arguments and received statem... | The Court | View |
| 2019-10-28 | Court appearance | The court scheduled an appearance for the parties at 10 a.m. | Court | View |
| 2019-07-31 | Conference | A conference for the parties in the case, tentatively scheduled by the court. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2019-07-26 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the judge discusses a recent order, schedules a future conference, and r... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
This is page 16 of 66 from a court filing (Document 613) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The visible text discusses the final composition of the jury, noting that 694 potential jurors answered a 50-question questionnaire. The document contains significant redactions, obscuring specific details about the jury selection process or specific juror information.
This document is Page 4 of 40 from a court filing (Document 365) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 22, 2021. It contains preliminary instructions for prospective jurors regarding a questionnaire, emphasizing the legal requirement to provide truthful answers under oath. The text explicitly prohibits jurors from discussing the case with anyone, using social media (citing Facebook and Twitter) to communicate about it, or conducting independent research.
The parties submitted a list of witnesses and entities to the Court the previous night for use in the voir dire process.
Before Maxwell's bail hearing, the parties filed extensive written submissions.
The judge circulated a draft charge to the parties which was docketed the previous night.
Mr. Rohrbach anticipates that the parties will provide a letter to the court later in the day detailing the proposed redacted exhibits for the closing arguments.
Mr. Rohrbach anticipates that the parties will provide a letter to the court later in the day detailing the proposed redacted exhibits for the closing arguments.
The Court ordered the parties to submit proposed questions via email on or before March 1, 2022, for an inquiry into Juror 50's answers.
Notification if either party seeks limited redactions to the Opinion & Order.
Directed parties to submit proposed redactions by Jan 13, 2022.
Informed parties of the Jan 5 juror communication.
Informed parties that a juror contacted staff about reporter approach.
Ordered submission citing authority for respective positions and indicating disputed statements.
A comment indicates that the parties involved in the case were to submit a joint letter to the Court on October 12, 2021, to provide an estimated length for the trial.
A comment on the document indicates that the parties involved in the case will submit a joint letter to the Court on October 12, 2021, to provide an estimate of how long the trial is expected to last.
Mentioned in Comment [A11] as a future/past action to estimate trial length.
A letter from the parties to the court, dated May 21, 2021, which prompted this order for a video hearing.
The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by December 30, 2020, regarding any proposed redactions.
Judge Nathan heard lengthy oral argument from the parties during the bail hearing.
The Court grants the government's motion, finding that the adjournment until July 31 at 11:00 a.m. is appropriate and warrants exclusion from speedy trial calculations to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure effective representation.
The Court proposes scheduling a conference for Wednesday, July 31, at 11:00 a.m. and tentatively sets it for that time.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity