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-00023096.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the final days of plea negotiations between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in August 2007. It includes a transcript of a letter signed by Matthew Menchel (on behalf of U.S. Attorney Acosta) setting a non-negotiable two-year incarceration term and an August 17 deadline. The narrative explains that the deadline was set to allow prosecutor Villafaña time to investigate Epstein's assistants and computers in New York if the deal was rejected, and notes that Menchel sent this letter on his final day at the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00014745.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge thanks and discharges the jury, acknowledging their service during the pandemic. Following the jury's dismissal, the court and counsel (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) discuss post-verdict logistics, including a briefing schedule and the presentence report, concluding with Ms. Sternheim requesting a court order for Ms. Maxwell to receive a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00014743.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the reading of the verdict, where the defendant is found 'Not guilty' on Count Two and 'Guilty' on Counts Three through Six. Following the reading, the court polls individual jurors (identified by number) to confirm that this is indeed their verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00014737.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule over the New Year holidays (Jan 1 and 2). The Judge insists on a strict schedule to minimize the risk of trial delays caused by potential COVID-19 quarantine requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00014710.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell are discussing a response to a note received from the jury. The Judge decides to refer the jury back to Instruction Number 21 on page 28. Additionally, the parties discuss extending the schedule for jury deliberations for the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00014706.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe regarding the interpretation of a jury note. The discussion focuses heavily on the grammatical placement of a comma in a question about liability for 'transportation of the return flight' versus a 'flight to New Mexico.'
DOJ-OGR-00014702.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal discussion regarding jury deliberations, specifically concerning whether Ghislaine Maxwell arranged flights to or from New Mexico for a person named 'Jane' for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. Attorney Ms. Moe argues that a note from the jury is confusing and that the parties are guessing at the jury's hypothetical questions regarding Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014700.jpg
This is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a debate between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding how to answer a jury note concerning 'Count Four' and a 'second element' related to specific flights or trips. The Judge leans toward following the government's suggestion to refer the jury back to the original instructions rather than providing new specifics.
DOJ-OGR-00014699.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe argue before the judge regarding a question posed by the jury about 'Count Four,' specifically whether a return flight from New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane' constitutes aiding in illegal sexual activity if the initial flight to New Mexico did not. The defense argues the return flight cannot be the sole basis for conviction, while the prosecution argues intent can be inferred.
DOJ-OGR-00014695.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks for legal clarification on 'Count Four,' specifically questioning if the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in 'Jane's return flight' but not the initial flight to New Mexico where sexual activity was intended to occur.
DOJ-OGR-00014693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, likely relating to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details a discussion regarding courthouse COVID-19 mask mandates (N95/KN95) and the handling of jury notes during deliberations. Specifically, the jury requested a transcript for 'Parkinson' (Court Exhibit 13) and had previously received supplies and a transcript for 'Matt'.
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-00014691.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a discussion between the Judge (The Court), Defense (Mr. Everdell), and Prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding a response to a jury note during deliberations. The court is preparing to send the jury a transcript of testimony from a witness named 'Matt' and is clarifying jury instructions regarding the definition of 'enticement' found on pages 21 and 33 of the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00014688.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) regarding a note received from the jury requesting office supplies, a specific transcript ('Matt's transcript'), and a definition of the legal term 'enticement'. Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the existing instruction stating that such terms have their 'ordinary everyday meanings'.
DOJ-OGR-00014685.jpg
This is the final page (page 7) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings are adjourned for the holidays until December 27, 2021. The Judge (The Court) discusses upcoming masking rules due to COVID-19 concerns and ensures supplies will be available, while Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim confirm they have no further matters to address.
DOJ-OGR-00014684.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript (Document 771) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the judge instructing the jury ('the 12 of you') to avoid media and communications about the case during a recess for a holiday. The judge also instructs jurors to contact Ms. Williams regarding COVID or other concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00014682.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding jury deliberations, specifically addressing a jury note declining an offer because they had plans, and confirming that a 'limiting instruction' was included with the transcript of witness 'Annie's' testimony provided to the jury. The court prepares to dismiss the jury for the day at 4:25 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a request (likely from the jury) for physical copies of testimonies from witnesses identified as Jane, Juan, and Kate. The parties discuss the formatting (binders, hole punches) and confirm that Ms. Drescher is printing the transcripts with agreed-upon redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00014680.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Judge Nathan and counsel (Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a scheduling note to be sent to the deliberating jury about December 23rd. Subsequently, the jury sends a note requesting testimony transcripts for witnesses identified as Jane, Wong, and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00014678.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Filing of Official Transcript' filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 20-cr-330). It notifies parties that a transcript for a conference held on December 21, 2021, has been filed and outlines the seven-day deadline for requesting redactions of sensitive personal information before public release.
DOJ-OGR-00014674.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 records a discussion between the Court, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding responses to jury notes, dismissal times during deliberations, lunch orders for the jury, and strict COVID-19 mask protocols mandated by the Chief Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00014672.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 captures a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding how to answer a jury question concerning conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. The defense argues for repeating limiting instructions to prevent broad application of testimony, while the Court argues a simple 'yes' is the substantive answer and the limiting instruction is nonresponsive.
DOJ-OGR-00014669.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the Judge coordinating the dismissal of the jury for the evening and subsequently addressing 'Court Exhibit 9,' a note from the jury asking if 'Annie's testimony' can be considered as conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. Ms. Comey argues the answer is yes, while Mr. Everdell requests a moment to confer.
DOJ-OGR-00014668.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge discussing the jury deliberation schedule leading up to the Christmas holiday. They agree to inform the jury that they have the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, if necessary, to allow jurors time to make childcare or other personal arrangements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity