DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009703.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details the jury selection process, specifically the debate over the juror questionnaire. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team proposed detailed questions regarding potential jurors' history with sexual abuse and assault. The government objected to these specific questions, and the Court partially sided with the prosecution, resulting in the consolidated 'Question 48' which asked broadly about personal or family history with sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009687.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing (Document 638) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 9, 2022. It is a blank continuation page for Juror ID 50, likely part of a juror questionnaire, providing space for additional answers. The page includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) control number at the bottom.
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-00009682.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 9, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The prospective juror indicates they have not been involved in activism related to sex trafficking or similar issues and state they would have no difficulty assessing the credibility of a law enforcement witness fairly.
DOJ-OGR-00009675.jpg
This document is page 14 of a filed court document (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 9, 2022. It contains a portion of a questionnaire filled out by Juror ID 50. The juror answers 'No' to having any association with the NYPD and 'No' to having any opinion of U.S. Attorneys Damian Williams or Audrey Strauss that would affect their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009673.jpg
This document is a portion of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 9, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The juror denies ever having a financial dispute with the government and also denies that they, their family, or close friends work in law, law enforcement, the justice system, or the courts. The responses suggest no conflicts of interest based on the questions asked on this page.
DOJ-OGR-00009670.jpg
This document is page 9 of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 9, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The prospective juror indicates they have no prior jury service, have never participated in a court case as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant, and have never been involved in or questioned as part of any governmental or law enforcement investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00009668.jpg
This document is page 9 of a filed jury questionnaire (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the responses of Juror ID 50 to three specific legal questions (12, 13, and 14) regarding the defendant's right not to testify, the requirement to judge solely on evidence, and the separation of verdict from punishment. Juror 50 answered 'Yes' to accepting all three legal principles.
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-00009649.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 636) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It contains a transcript of questions posed to an individual (likely a juror) regarding their attention to detail when filling out a specific questionnaire, specifically referencing Questions 34, 37, and 41. The questioning focuses on establishing that the individual did not 'fly through' the questions but took time to provide written responses.
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-00009642.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines proposed questions for a hearing regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically probing why the juror answered 'No' to questionnaire questions 48 and 25 regarding past sexual abuse and crime victimization, despite admitting to being sexually abused as a child. The document seeks to establish the credibility of the juror's explanations for these discrepancies.
DOJ-OGR-00009637.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 635) dated March 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains proposed questions for a juror regarding potential bias against Maxwell and their ability to be fair. The document is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00009623.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter filed on March 2, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense attorneys request that Maxwell's lawyers be present for an upcoming proceeding and ask for a continuance until May. The letter is signed by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and lists co-counsel Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00009610.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that the Court should deny Maxwell's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, specifically addressing Count One (conspiracy). The text references testimony from a victim named 'Jane' who stated she was abused by both Epstein and Maxwell in New York and was groomed through methods including 'field trips.'
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00009602.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the unavailability of certain witnesses. The filing contends that the defendant has failed to prove these witnesses (architects Pinto and Salhi) were 'key' or that their testimony would have been irreplaceably helpful. It further points out that the defendant had the opportunity to, and did, cross-examine other employees of Epstein, such as Juan Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers, to establish facts about the defendant's role and time spent at Epstein's residences.
DOJ-OGR-00009589.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 621) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text presents legal arguments citing Second Circuit precedents (specifically the 'Korfant factors') to argue that separate conspiracy counts are distinct and do not violate double jeopardy protections. The prosecution argues that Counts Three and Five charge different offenses and requests the Court reject the defendant's multiplicity claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 621) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. The Government argues that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three (Mann Act conspiracy) and Count Five (Sex Trafficking conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), asserting they are distinct criminal schemes and not multiplicitous. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding jury instructions related to a witness/victim referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00009585.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 621) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on Feb 25, 2022. It argues that no legal 'variance' occurred during the trial regarding the charges in the S2 Indictment. The text discusses the grooming of a victim named 'Jane' between 1994 and 1997 and addresses the defendant's argument regarding prejudice concerning testimony about abuse at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00009576.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses a specific jury note sent during deliberations regarding 'Count Four' and whether aiding in the return flight of a victim named 'Jane' (but not the flight to New Mexico) constituted guilt if the intent was sexual activity. The text details the defense's attempt to add jury instructions to limit the scope of intent to New York, which the Court rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg
This page is from a Government legal filing (Document 621, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) arguing against a post-trial motion by the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government asserts that the jury did not improperly convict the defendant based solely on sexual abuse of a victim named 'Jane' in New Mexico, but rather followed instructions regarding violations of New York law. The text discusses jury instructions, the lack of New Mexico specific legal charges presented to the jury, and refutes the defense's claim of a constructive amendment or variance.
DOJ-OGR-00009572.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses the Court's jury instructions regarding the Mann Act, specifically focusing on whether the defendant intended for victims (referred to as 'Jane,' 'Kate,' and 'Annie') to engage in sexual activity in New York in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The text argues that the Court properly defined the scope of the alleged crimes and limited the jury's consideration to specific state offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg
Page 5 of 51 from a court filing (Document 621) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on Feb 25, 2022. The text argues that no 'constructive amendment' of the indictment occurred regarding the charges of enticing and transporting victim 'Jane' and other minor victims to New York. The remainder of the page outlines applicable law regarding the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, citing precedents like U.S. v. Khalupsky and U.S. v. Dove to define the legal standard for constructive amendments.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity