| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This document is a news article from DailyMail.Online detailing an interview with 'Scotty,' a juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty discusses the jury's deliberations, their negative reaction to the defense's aggressive tactics towards victims, and the overwhelming complexity of the 80-page jury instructions. A sidebar article reports on a separate legal issue, describing a 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York for a sexual abuse lawsuit, where a judge appeared unreceptive to his lawyers' arguments to dismiss the case.
This document is a Daily Mail news article, filed as a legal exhibit, detailing an interview with 'Scotty,' a juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty discusses his own past experience with sexual abuse, which he shared with fellow jurors, and recounts his perception of the victims' testimony and his interactions with Maxwell in the courtroom. The article notes speculation that this juror's experience could become grounds for an appeal by Maxwell.
This document, appearing to be a court document or news article, discusses observations made by a juror named Scotty David during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It highlights the potential for Maxwell to claim a mistrial because Scotty David, who was a victim of child sex abuse, shared his experiences with other jurors, which may not have been fully disclosed during jury selection. Legal experts weigh in on the implications of this revelation for Maxwell's conviction.
This document is a court exhibit containing a printed Daily Mail article from January 5, 2022. The article features an exclusive interview with Scotty David, a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, who describes Maxwell as a predator 'as guilty as Epstein.' David reveals he disclosed his own history of sexual abuse to fellow jurors during deliberations to help explain how victims process traumatic memories, countering the defense's 'false memory' arguments.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which a speaker, likely the judge, explains their decision to reject a proposal from the defense regarding how to answer a jury question about 'Count Four'. The speaker argues for reminding the jury of the entire instruction, including the relevant New York penal law, rather than just pointing to specific language. The speaker also formally records that they have extended the jury's deliberation schedule by one hour to 6:00 PM.
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.
This document is page 6 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, filed during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The defense argues that a jury note indicates confusion regarding Counts Two and Four, specifically concerning jurisdiction and New York law. The text argues that the jury should not be permitted to convict Maxwell based on conduct that occurred in New Mexico (specifically aiding in a return flight from New Mexico) as it does not constitute a violation of New York law.
This document is page 5 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021, regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Court's response to a jury note was incorrect and prejudicial, citing Second Circuit case law regarding the importance of accurate instructions during jury deliberations. A footnote clarifies the defense's position on the jurisdictional requirements of the conspiracy counts, specifically regarding intent and the location of sexual activity (New York) involving individuals under 17.
This document is page 4 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 27, 2021, during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the jury appears to be considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four based on events in New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane,' whereas the indictment specified events in New York. The defense contends that allowing a conviction based on the New Mexico evidence would constitute a 'constructive amendment' or 'substantial variance' from the indictment, which would be a reversible legal error.
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that for a conviction on Count Four, the jury must only consider evidence related to the violation of New York Penal Law concerning the transportation of 'Jane' from Florida to New York. The document stresses that any conduct that occurred in New Mexico is irrelevant to this specific charge, citing a statement by the government during the trial to support this point and avoid jury confusion.
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four, which charges Maxwell with transporting an individual under 17 ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The judge instructs the jury that the government must prove Maxwell's intent and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, though the illegal activity need not be the sole purpose of the transportation.
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically jury instructions) filed on February 28, 2023, as part of Case 22-1426 (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal). It details Instruction No. 18 and 19 regarding 'Count Four,' which charges transportation of a minor (under 17) in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity. The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a), specifically noting the requirement to prove Ms. Maxwell laid intent for the individual to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law.
District Judge Alison J. Nathan denies all pending pretrial motions filed by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeking to dismiss the S2 superseding indictment and compel discovery. The court specifically rejects the argument that the charges are barred by Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, reaffirming that the agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Annabi, the filing asserts that such agreements are limited to the district in which they are made unless they explicitly state a broader scope. The document refutes an opposing argument from an individual named Maxwell, stating the NPA lacks the necessary language to apply to other districts.
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 29, 2021. It details several allegations of Maxwell's involvement in the sexual abuse of minors, including arranging for victims to provide massages to Epstein and travel with him between 1994 and 2002. The page outlines specific incidents involving three unnamed minor victims in locations such as New Mexico, London, and Florida, and introduces COUNT TWO: "Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts."
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an indictment, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines a conspiracy between Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and others to entice individuals across state lines for illegal sexual activity. The document details specific overt acts, including Maxwell's participation in group sexual encounters with a minor victim in New York and Florida between 1994 and 1997, and the enticement of that same victim to travel for sexual abuse in 1996.
This document contains a series of docket entries from January 2022 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries primarily concern 'Juror Number 50,' who retained private counsel (Todd Spodek) regarding a potential post-trial inquiry into juror misconduct or eligibility. Judge Nathan issued orders managing the scheduling of motions, addressing the juror's request to intervene, and handling the sealing and redaction of the juror's questionnaire and voir dire records.
This document is a court docket entry from February 28, 2023, for Case 22-1426, primarily concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It details court orders and filings from November 2021, including COVID-19 protocols for courthouse access, scheduling revisions for motions in limine, and a pretrial conference. The entries highlight communications between the prosecution (USA) and defense (Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys) regarding trial logistics and a ruling on witness testimony, all overseen by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
This document, dated February 28, 2023, details court orders and filings from July 2020 concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's case. It outlines the scheduling of her remote arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing for July 14, 2020, including protocols for video appearances, public access, and COVID-19 courthouse entry requirements. The document also references letters from both defense and prosecution counsel regarding scheduling and highlights crime victims' rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
This document is an affirmation filed on January 16, 2023, by attorney John M. Leventhal in the US Court of Appeals Second Circuit regarding the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket 22-1426). Leventhal requests permission to file an oversized brief and outlines the procedural history, including previous scheduling requests and a pending motion to extend the deadline to February 28, 2023. He notes that the US Attorney's Office for the SDNY has no objection to the time extension.
This is the final page of a four-page legal document (Document 40) filed on January 12, 2023, for Case 22-1426. The page is mostly blank but includes an address in New York City and a Department of Justice (DOJ) document identifier in the footer.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity