courthouse
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017295.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which a judge gives instructions to the jury. The judge addresses the jury's schedule, the procedure for beginning deliberations, a potential deliberation date of December 23rd, and reminds them of the courthouse mask policy and the strict rule against discussing the case outside of formal deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00017288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule around the Christmas holiday. The main point of discussion is whether to offer the jury the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, and the importance of informing them promptly to allow for personal arrangements, such as childcare.
DOJ-OGR-00017273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell) about the procedures for jury deliberations. The judge outlines the schedule, including a 9:00 a.m. start time, and clarifies that exhibits will be provided automatically to the jury. The discussion also covers the roles of court staff like the deputy and marshal in managing the jury process.
DOJ-OGR-00017253.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically a jury charge from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text contains Instruction No. 43, which explains the concepts of circumstantial evidence and inferences to the jury. It clarifies that circumstantial evidence holds the same legal value as direct evidence and reminds the jury that they must be convinced of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00017252.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically jury instructions from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The text, labeled "Instruction No. 42," defines and differentiates between direct and circumstantial evidence for the jury. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate circumstantial evidence, involving inferring rain from observing people entering a courtroom with a wet umbrella and raincoat.
DOJ-OGR-00010763.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 2, filed on June 29, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The prospective juror indicates they have no personal commitments, language difficulties, medical conditions, or medications that would prevent them from serving on the jury. In the optional explanation fields, the juror has written 'Don't Know'.
DOJ-OGR-00010340.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order regarding the validity of the trial verdict in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically addressing 'Juror 50'. The Court credits Juror 50's testimony that he failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse on the jury questionnaire because he was distracted by a recent breakup, felt rushed by the environment, and did not believe he would be selected. The text argues that his failure to disclose was not intentional deceit but a result of lack of focus and the specific wording of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00010295.jpg
This legal document details the testimony of Juror 50 regarding an inaccurate answer he provided on a jury questionnaire. Juror 50 claims the error was an "inadvertent mistake" caused by skimming the question too quickly and being distracted by the environment in the courthouse. The document contrasts the juror's explanation with the defendant's legal argument that the juror's actions satisfy the first prong of the McDonough test for juror dishonesty.
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-00010081.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the questioning of an individual named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on Edelstein's awareness of a juror's (Catherine Conrad) past involvement in a lawsuit, information received from Theresa Trzaskoma via a Westlaw report, and the subsequent decision to hire Nardello to investigate after receiving a 'juror letter'.
DOJ-OGR-00009701.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues for a new trial for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The basis for the request is the allegation that Juror No. 50 provided a false answer on a jury selection questionnaire regarding personal experience with sexual assault, which was a core issue in the case. This alleged dishonesty is claimed to have resulted in an unfair and impartial jury, thereby depriving Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009666.jpg
This document is page 7 (filed as page 5 of Document 638) of a jury questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Filled out by 'Juror ID 50', the form shows the juror checking 'No' to questions regarding scheduling conflicts, English language difficulties, medical/mental conditions affecting service, and medication usage that would affect attention.
DOJ-OGR-00009643.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 1, 2022, by the defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It lists specific proposed questions for 'Juror 50' regarding his prior knowledge of the case, his exposure to media reports about Epstein and Maxwell, and how his own history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse may have influenced his state of mind and sympathy for the victims during jury selection.
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-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-00014675.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court is addressing the jury regarding scheduling, specifically acknowledging a note about dismissing at 5 p.m. and offering the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd. The Judge also reiterates strict instructions regarding the presence of all 12 jurors for deliberations, COVID-19 mask protocols in the courthouse, and the prohibition of discussing the case outside the deliberation room.
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-00014632.jpg
This document is page 232 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions (the Charge) regarding the definition and weight of circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence, and Instruction No. 43 regarding inferences. The judge explicitly instructs the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00005373.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated October 22, 2021, containing proposed voir dire questions and jury instructions. It specifically highlights disputes between the Government and the Defense regarding whether potential jurors should be asked live questions about their knowledge of or dealings with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text includes standard admonitions to jurors not to discuss the case and to report any outside communication attempts.
DOJ-OGR-00005330.jpg
This document is Page 8 of 35 from a court filing (Document 367) dated October 22, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a blank jury questionnaire asking potential jurors about scheduling conflicts, English proficiency, medical conditions, and medication use that might affect their ability to serve.
DOJ-OGR-00005321.jpg
This document is page 5 of 6 from a court transcript filed on October 22, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains instructions from the judge to prospective jurors regarding the logistics of jury selection during the COVID-19 pandemic, including masking and social distancing requirements. The text details how jurors should complete their questionnaires, protocols for restroom breaks, and emphasizes the civic importance of jury service.
DOJ-OGR-00005320.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 22, 2021, containing instructions to the jury pool. The text outlines strict prohibitions against jurors discussing the case on social media or conducting independent research via Google or news outlets. It also details privacy and safety measures due to the 'high-profile' nature of the case and COVID-19, including the use of juror numbers instead of names and the provision of daily transportation for jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00032989.jpg
This document is the cover page for a deposition transcript taken on February 20, 2008, in the case of the State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 2006 CF09454AXX). The deposition took place at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, but the name of the deponent is redacted. The document was produced by Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription and bears a Department of Justice bates stamp number.
DOJ-OGR-00005224.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, filed on October 14, 2021. The order addresses the court's receipt of a letter from a victim's lawyer regarding trial attendance, stating it will be filed under seal and shared with counsel. It also outlines procedures for ensuring public, victim, and defendant's family access to the upcoming trial, providing contact information for coordination through the Victim Witness Unit and the District Executive's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00033128.jpg
This document is page 140 of an index from a legal transcript created by Consor & Associates, dated July 26, 2017. The index lists keywords alphabetically from 'County' to 'duly' and provides the page and line numbers where each term appears in the full transcript. The indexed terms suggest the transcript covers legal proceedings, depositions, and mentions individuals named Courtney, Danielle, Downers, and Duchesne.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity