court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
John Marcus McNichols
|
Professional |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Claus Von Bulow Appeal and Retrial | Rhode Island | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's attorneys appealed Judge Colbath's ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, whic... | N/A | View |
| 2021-06-30 | N/A | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision in Commonwealth v. Cosby vacating conviction. | Pennsylvania | View |
| 2020-06-23 | N/A | Court granted Cosby's petition for allowance of appeal. | Pennsylvania | View |
| 2009-09-22 | N/A | Videotaped Deposition of Jean Luc Bruhel | Esquire Court Reporters, On... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008454.jpg
This document is page 2 of 4 of a court filing (Document 561) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It consists of a list of Government Exhibit identifiers (GX-2 and GX-3 series), all ending in '-R', which suggests they are redacted files being entered into the record.
DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and the admissibility of evidence concerning the thoroughness of the government's investigation. The Court rules to preclude the defense from introducing affirmative evidence attacking the investigation's thoroughness unless it is probative of the defendant's guilt, citing cases such as United States v. Figueroa and Kyles v. Whitley.
DOJ-OGR-00001523.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, which corresponds to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated July 6, 2020. It argues for a 'partial closure' of the courtroom proceedings due to the health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, citing specific infection statistics for New Hampshire and the United States. The document references the legal precedent *United States v. Smith* to justify security measures and closures in the interest of public safety.
DOJ-OGR-00001293.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV) from the District of New Mexico, dated February 5, 2021. It discusses the prolonged pretrial custody of a Mr. Robertson due to COVID-19 related court suspensions and details the turnover of his legal defense team. The text also references a motion for release based on Robertson's compromised immune system and the proposal of his father as a custodian.
DOJ-OGR-00001278.jpg
This document is page 5 (marked page 7 of 12 in the PDF) of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text outlines the legal standards for bail and detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), citing Second Circuit precedents regarding the presumption of detention and the burden of proof. The 'Discussion' section notes that the Defendant (Maxwell) is filing her third motion for bail, arguing that new proposed conditions and pending pre-trial motions warrant a reconsideration of her detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000916.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021, outlining legal issues presented for review regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that her detention conditions—including sleep deprivation, surveillance, solitary confinement, lack of food/water, and inability to review discovery documents—prevent her from effectively preparing a defense. It also challenges the trial court's decision to deny bail based on 'old, anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations' from the government.
DOJ-OGR-00015558.jpg
This document is a photograph entered as Government Exhibit 217 in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 Cr. 330). The image depicts the outdoor swimming pool, patio area, and pool house/cabana, visually consistent with Jeffrey Epstein's property in Palm Beach, Florida. An unidentified individual is visible walking in the background near the pool house.
DOJ-OGR-00002426.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court filing (Document 136) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. The text describes a dispute over a line of questioning during testimony where an examiner asked Maxwell to list all girls under 18 she had brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house. The defense argues the question was improper, lacked foundation, and asked for recall of events from nearly 20 years prior; the document notes Maxwell admitted she could not make such a list.
DOJ-OGR-00002323.jpg
This document is page 3 (Table of Authorities) of a legal filing (Document 126) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists legal precedents (cases) and statutes cited in the brief, including Supreme Court cases like Duren v. Missouri and Second Circuit cases like United States v. Jackman. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002323.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021986.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 19, 2019. An attorney is arguing before a judge for their client, Ms. Noel, to be allowed to possess her firearm during pretrial proceedings for a nonviolent offense. The attorney corrects a previous statement, revealing that Ms. Noel has credentials to carry the firearm for her job, and argues that restricting this right is an infringement of her Second Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
This document is page 17 (labeled page 40 of 56 in the header) of a legal brief, likely from the government (DOJ), arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It specifically addresses the District Court's denial of a new trial regarding 'Juror 50', who Maxwell alleges failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text cites legal precedents supporting the court's discretion to deny probing jurors post-verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021592.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely US v. Maxwell appeal records) containing a judge's ruling during sentencing. The judge overrules the defendant's objection and sustains the government's objection regarding the PSR Guideline calculation, explicitly finding that Virginia Roberts and Melissa were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. Consequently, the judge rules that these victims must be included in the sentencing calculation under Section 3D1.4, despite not being named in the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (related to Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that protective orders regarding discovery documents in criminal cases are not subject to interlocutory appeal, citing Second Circuit precedents like U.S. v. Caparros and U.S. v. Pappas. The argument specifically asserts that Maxwell's jurisdictional arguments fail to meet the criteria for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00016996.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument regarding jury instructions in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that a 'conscious avoidance instruction' is appropriate because the government argues Maxwell either knew or consciously avoided knowing that the purpose of her travel with Jeffrey Epstein and minors was sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00013003.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a topless photograph of an unnamed victim. The prosecution argues the photo corroborates testimony that the victim was a minor involved in the conspiracy, citing flight logs showing she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell at age 17. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger objects, citing photo metadata and testimony from Mr. Alessi (House Manager) suggesting the victim was an adult (met in 2001/2002) when the events occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk, citing Supreme Court precedent on bail. It references the case of United States v. Bodmer, where a defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's speculative arguments. The document concludes that Ms. Maxwell should receive similar treatment to other defendants granted bond.
DOJ-OGR-00019841.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal brief (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, appealing a decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The text argues that the trial court denied bail based on the government's claims without reviewing actual evidence, while Maxwell endures 'Kafkaesque conditions.' It also outlines 12 pretrial motions filed by the defense, including motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, pre-indictment delay, and the violation of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00019834.jpg
This document serves as the 'Issues Presented' section of a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-58. It outlines two main arguments: 1) Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare her defense due to horrific detention conditions (sleep deprivation, isolation, surveillance, inadequate technology for discovery review, and poor sustenance), and 2) The trial court erred in denying bail based on 'anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations' provided by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 583) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2022. It argues against the Defendant's request to delay public access to juror questionnaires, specifically citing the misconduct of 'Juror 50' as grounds for a new trial motion. The filing asserts that First Amendment rights and Second Circuit precedent (Lugosch) support immediate unsealing now that the trial has concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00010701.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing from June 25, 2022, related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the court has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to hear from individuals during sentencing, even if they do not strictly meet the definition of a 'victim' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It cites various legal precedents to support the admission of statements from 'affected individuals,' specifically mentioning 'Sarah' at the very end of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00010607.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 672) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated June 24, 2022. It is a Victim Impact Statement written by a 45-year-old woman who testified at the trial, detailing the long-term psychological effects of the abuse she suffered, including substance use disorder and PTSD. The author expresses gratitude to the court, the prosecutors, the jury, and Judge Nathan for the fair execution of the trial and the opportunity to seek justice.
DOJ-OGR-00010227.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features an interrogation of a juror regarding why they rushed through their jury questionnaire and failed to disclose relevant information. The juror admits that, had they answered question 49 correctly, they would have disclosed that their stepbrother and his friend were accused of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00009912.jpg
This document is an index of exhibits (13 through 23) from a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' filed in a legal case. The exhibits consist of various legal and criminal records, including court dispositions, police records, and filings related to individuals named Catherine Conrad, Catherine Rosa, and Frank Rosa. Several exhibits pertain to the civil case 'Conrad v. Manessis' in Bronx County, New York, with filings dated between 2003 and 2009.
DOJ-OGR-00009551.jpg
This court order page denies the Defendant's (Maxwell) request to investigate Juror 50's social media and to examine other jurors regarding a 'second juror' allegedly abused as a minor. The court rules that Juror 50's Instagram posts were personal and do not warrant a 'fishing expedition,' and that the theory regarding a second juror is unfounded speculation based on a New York Times article. Footnote 5 details a timeline of communications between the court and jurors regarding media harassment, noting that these communications will be shared with the parties under seal with redactions to protect juror privacy.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity