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-00014501.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (summation by defense attorney Ms. Menninger filed 08/10/22) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney attacks the credibility of a witness named 'Jane' by highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding dates, her age during specific trips (New York, New Mexico, Europe), and her communications with her mother regarding abuse versus other lawsuits. The text specifically mentions Jane receiving 'wads of cash' from Jeffrey Epstein and cites a 1997 flight log entry.
DOJ-OGR-00011716.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the opening statement of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the accusers' memories are unreliable due to media influence and monetary incentives (False Memory Syndrome defense strategy). An objection by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding Sternheim's characterization of investigators is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00011712.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript of the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that while four accusers will testify, the evidence will not support the charges, and she attempts to humanize Maxwell by highlighting her education and skills. The text also frames Jeffrey Epstein's image in the 1990s as a successful, charismatic philanthropist to explain Maxwell's association with him.
DOJ-OGR-00011710.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording a sidebar conference during the opening statements of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects that the defense is improperly arguing the government is targeting the defendant, violating a pretrial ruling. The Court rules that while the defense cannot attack the prosecution's motives, they are permitted to argue that witnesses are using the defendant as a scapegoat or stand-in.
DOJ-OGR-00011708.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues that witness memories are faded and contaminated by media, and that Jeffrey Epstein manipulated everyone, including Maxwell. The text asserts that accusers were motivated or manipulated by civil attorneys seeking money and notes that testifying witnesses received millions of dollars from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Fund with minimal vetting.
DOJ-OGR-00011699.jpg
This document is page 34 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz. It details the grooming and sexual abuse of a minor referred to as 'Jane' (aged 14-16) by Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text describes how they befriended the child, provided financial incentives, and committed sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach home, often with the defendant present in the room to normalize the abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00011696.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript featuring the opening statement by Ms. Pomerantz. It outlines allegations against a defendant and Epstein, detailing how they purportedly used promises of career advancement and the guise of massage to groom and sexually abuse young girls at properties in Palm Beach and Manhattan.
DOJ-OGR-00011695.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Pomerantz) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecutor describes Maxwell as Epstein's 'second in command' and 'lady of the house,' detailing how she managed staff to create a 'culture of silence' and utilized a specific 'playbook' to groom and abuse teenage girls, specifically targeting vulnerable daughters of single mothers with promises of financial aid and schooling.
DOJ-OGR-00011694.jpg
This document is a page from the opening statement transcript by Ms. Pomerantz in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor outlines the prosecution's intent to prove Maxwell's guilt and describes her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as his 'right hand,' 'best friend,' and 'closest associate.' It details Epstein's wealth, properties (Palm Beach, Manhattan, New Mexico, Paris, USVI), and private planes, noting that Maxwell shared in this lifestyle beginning in the early 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00011684.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court transcript (Document 741) filed on August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It contains standard jury instructions delivered by the judge, explaining that lawyer statements and objections are not evidence, and instructing jurors to use their common sense when evaluating testimony. The page bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00011684.
DOJ-OGR-00011682.jpg
This document is page 21 (transcript page 17) of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains preliminary instructions from the judge to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof resting solely on the government, and the defendant's right not to present evidence (specifically using female pronouns 'she' and 'her'). The judge also outlines their own role in deciding rules of law compared to the jury's role as fact-finders.
DOJ-OGR-00011680.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in of a jury consisting of 12 members and six alternates by a court clerk named Ms. Williams. The Judge (The Court) then begins providing preliminary instructions regarding the trial proceedings, specifically explaining the process of opening statements by the government and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00011679.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a logistical delay in open court involving defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge regarding three jurors who are missing or delayed at the security line. The Judge discusses moving jurors between the first and fifth floors to manage the situation.
DOJ-OGR-00011678.jpg
This is page 13 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court discusses procedural logistics for questioning jurors using a handheld mic and then moves to a sidebar conference to discuss a sealed issue regarding a witness testifying under a pseudonym. The transcript notes that pages 14 through 17 are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the Defense (Ms. Sternheim), and the Judge regarding the placement of screens in the courtroom to ensure evidence shown to a witness is not visible to the public in the gallery. The prosecution expresses concern about visibility for their paralegal and the public, which the Defense addresses by clarifying seating arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00011665.jpg
This 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) in the Southern District of New York. The document notifies parties that a transcript for a conference held on November 23, 2021, has been filed by court reporter 'speer'. It outlines the standard legal procedures and deadlines for requesting redactions of personal identifiers before the transcript becomes publicly available.
DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Mr. Everdell), and the Judge regarding jury instructions for a Mann Act conspiracy count. The specific issue involves whether sexual conduct was illegal under New Mexico law versus New York law, and the age of consent regarding a specific witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the government's proposed jury instructions are confusing and contrasts them with the defense's position. The argument centers on jurisdiction and the age of consent, specifically regarding 'Accuser 2' and acts committed in New Mexico that were allegedly legal under New Mexico law at the time, versus how they are treated under New York conspiracy law.
DOJ-OGR-00011647.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding Rule 16 disclosures and the sufficiency of notice provided to the defense concerning the opinions of expert witness Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient, they may face issues later, emphasizing equal standards for both parties.
DOJ-OGR-00011645.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Judge regarding expert witness Mr. Flatley. The discussion focuses on the scope of Mr. Flatley's expertise, specifically regarding forensic principles, digital document storage, and metadata, and whether proper notice was given to the defense regarding his opinions. The Judge instructs that any differing expert opinions on these technical matters must be noticed.
DOJ-OGR-00011641.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text documents a legal argument between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger) and the Judge regarding a witness named Kelso. The debate centers on whether Kelso will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding computer forensics and metadata, and whether sufficient disclosure has been made under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
DOJ-OGR-00011635.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the mechanics of presenting documents during cross-examination, specifically debating the use of physical binders versus electronic displays. The Judge instructs counsel to prepare binders for potential use to ensure smooth proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00011633.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a procedural argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge. The discussion centers on how to present documents designated for 'refreshing recollection' without exposing identifying information to the public via courtroom screens. The Judge suggests using paper to ensure anonymity, while Mr. Pagliuca argues this is impractical due to the 'thousands of pages' involved.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity