District Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Assignment of civil case caption 9:08-CV-80736. | District Court | View |
| 2006-10-06 | N/A | Grand Jury subpoena issued by US District Court, Southern District of Florida | Southern District of Florida | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019846.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021. It presents legal arguments for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on a defendant's ability to communicate with counsel and prepare a defense. The text analyzes case precedents *United States v. Clark*, *Stephens*, and *United States v. Robertson*, highlighting that even defendants with serious charges (like Robertson) were released to prepare for trial during the pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00019760.jpg
This document contains a court docket log from December 4-8, 2020, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries detail procedural disputes over sealing documents, a schedule for a renewed bail motion, and significant back-and-forth regarding Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC Brooklyn. Judge Nathan denied a request to summon Warden Heriberto Tellez personally but ordered the government to provide written updates every 60 days concerning Maxwell's access to legal materials and the frequency of searches conducted on her.
DOJ-OGR-00017313.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the Judge and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks a legal question about 'Count Four,' specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' on a return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00013981.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 features the direct examination testimony of an expert witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), who is explaining the stages of memory—specifically retention, retrieval, and acquisition—and how psychological factors can affect memory accuracy.
DOJ-OGR-00013900.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on identifying the staff employed at Jeffrey Epstein's office during the mid-to-late 1990s (1996-1998). The witness lists specific names and roles, including the legal team (Jeff Schantz, Darren Indyke, Amanda Milroy), the accounting team (Harry Beller, Eric Gany, Bella, Gee), receptionists (Michelle Healy, Helen Kim), and an executive assistant (Maureen).
DOJ-OGR-00013888.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the use of electronic equipment to simulate a whiteboard for a jury demonstration because COVID protocols prevented the person ('she') from standing directly before the jury. The discussion centers on whether a picture of the digital drawing needs to be preserved for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00013787.jpg
This document is page 196 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer) testifies on redirect examination about sexualized experiences with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She describes Epstein crawling into bed with her and a separate incident in New Mexico where Maxwell touched her breasts during a massage, stating these actions were a pattern designed to confuse her boundaries for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00013778.jpg
This page is a transcript from the redirect examination of witness A. Farmer in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness confirms that in a 2006 FBI interview, conducted without a lawyer present, she reported that Maxwell massaged her breasts. The prosecutor (Ms. Pomerantz) attempts to ask about Epstein getting into bed with the witness, but the defense (Ms. Menninger) successfully objects to the question as leading. The examination then turns to reviewing a specific document (3514-001) to clarify a statement regarding a person named Maria.
DOJ-OGR-00010714.jpg
This document is the second page of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated June 23, 2022, signed by Robert Y. Lewis. It declares that on June 3, 2022, Lewis emailed the Victim Impact Statement of Elizbeth Stein to Ms. Geiser.
DOJ-OGR-00010650.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 2 of 2) of a legal filing from the law firm BSF (Boies Schiller Flexner), signed by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. It was filed on June 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The main content of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00010630.jpg
This document is Page 39 of 68 from a court filing (Document 672) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The entire content of the page has been redacted, leaving only the court header and the Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00010630) visible.
DOJ-OGR-00010629.jpg
This document is page 38 of 68 from Document 672 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The entire content of the page is completely redacted, leaving only the court header and the DOJ bates stamp visible.
DOJ-OGR-00010620.jpg
This document is page 29 of 68 from a court filing dated June 24, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The entire content of the page is redacted, leaving only the header and the DOJ footer stamp visible.
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
This document is page 36 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically concerning the juror's history of sexual abuse and 'healing process.' The Court cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent inquiry into the juror's mental processes during deliberations and concludes that the juror's past trauma did not interfere with his ability to be fair and impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00010343.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details the Court's analysis of 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror deliberately concealed a history of sexual abuse by a stepbrother when answering questionnaire questions 48 and 49. The Court concludes that the juror's inconsistent answers were due to skimming the questionnaire and a personal definition of 'family' that excluded the stepbrother, ultimately finding the juror's explanations reasonable and credible.
DOJ-OGR-00010268.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal filing (Document 647) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The filing outlines arguments that the Court erred in its response to a jury note regarding intent requirements for Count Four and argues that the three conspiracy counts are multiplicitous because they stem from a single criminal scheme. It concludes with a request for the Court to grant Maxwell's other motions.
DOJ-OGR-00009905.jpg
This document is an index page (page ii, filing page 4 of 67) from a legal filing dated August 24, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cv-00388-PAE. It lists page references for trial transcripts covering dates from March 15, 2011, to April 15, 2011 (Trial Days 9 through 27). The document bears a Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (DOJ-OGR) Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009828.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Doc 643) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It is likely a government response arguing against a retrial, specifically refuting the defendant's claims that 'Juror 50' lied about social media accounts or held implied bias. The text distinguishes the current situation from the 'Daugerdas' precedent and asserts that even if the juror had answered truthfully about social media, they would not have been struck for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009809.jpg
This document is page 9 (filed as page 11 of 49) of a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It analyzes post-trial media interviews given by 'Juror 50' to Reuters and The Independent regarding his failure to disclose his own sexual abuse history on the jury questionnaire. The text argues that despite this omission, Juror 50 remained impartial, citing his skeptical approach to evidence and specific reasons for convicting on some counts while acquitting on others (specifically regarding victim 'Jane').
DOJ-OGR-00009786.jpg
This document is a single page from a court filing (Document 612-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It appears to be a blank lined page intended for notes or a questionnaire response for Juror ID 50, containing no handwritten content other than the Juror ID.
DOJ-OGR-00009757.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 65 of 66) of a legal filing (Document 642) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It lists the defense counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Christian Everdell, and Bobbi Sternheim, along with their respective law firms and contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00009704.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for the trial of Ms. Maxwell. It specifically focuses on 'Juror No. 50', listing their responses to questionnaire items 13, 25, 42, 43, and 44, wherein the juror denied being a victim of a crime or having biases that would affect impartiality under penalty of perjury. The document notes that 694 individuals originally answered the questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009683.jpg
This document is page 22 of a filing (Document 638, internal page 24) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 9, 2022. It contains the responses of Juror ID 50 to a voir dire questionnaire. The juror indicates 'No' to having difficulty assessing the credibility of sexual abuse witnesses (Q47) and 'No' to having ever been a victim of sexual harassment or assault personally or via family/friends (Q48).
DOJ-OGR-00009648.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions (numbers 19 and 20) addressed to an individual (likely a juror) regarding their answers on a jury questionnaire. Specifically, it probes whether the individual read, understood, and truthfully answered 'Question 25' regarding being a victim of a crime, noting that the individual answered 'No'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity