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-00014886.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript (Document 782, filed Jan 15, 2025) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who defines 'interpersonal violence' and 'forensic psychology' for the court. Rocchio also testifies to having completed between 500 and 1,000 hours of clinical face-to-face work with patients during their Master's and Ph.D. studies.
DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
DOJ-OGR-00014876.jpg
This document is the final page (26) of a United States Court of Appeals ruling filed on January 23, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific arguments on appeal, including the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in Florida prevented her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal opinion (likely from a Court of Appeals) affirming the sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court upholds the District Court's application of a 'leadership enhancement' to her sentence and validates the court's reasoning regarding the gravity of her conduct and her pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of underage girls. It references specific sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and mentions an individual named Kellen in the context of where the abuse occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014872.jpg
This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (likely an opinion or government brief) dated December 2, 2024, related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance between the evidence presented at trial and the original indictment, citing various legal precedents (Parker, Salmonese, Dove) to support the validity of the conviction under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00014858.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (filed Dec 2, 2024) summarizing the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's post-trial motions. It details the controversy surrounding 'Juror 50,' who testified on March 8, 2022, that inaccuracies in his jury questionnaire regarding past sexual abuse were inadvertent mistakes. The court found the juror credible and denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, subsequently sentencing her to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00014856.jpg
This document page discusses the legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing Epstein's plea agreement and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that protected potential co-conspirators. It also introduces the indictment against Maxwell, outlining the specific counts and statutes related to conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00014854.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, and confirms that the statute of limitations was not violated. The document also notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000 and denied a new trial regarding juror conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00014835.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the courtroom regarding sentencing guidelines, stating the applicable range is 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. The Judge outlines the legal requirements under *Booker* and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) for determining a sentence that is 'sufficient, but no greater than necessary.'
DOJ-OGR-00014834.jpg
This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00014830.jpg
This document is page 83 of a court transcript from the sentencing phase of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The defense counsel is arguing for mitigation, highlighting Maxwell's age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive behavior while incarcerated at the MDC, specifically noting her move from solitary confinement to general population where she teaches English and GED classes to other inmates. The text acknowledges she is being sentenced for 'terrible conduct' but argues she poses no recidivism risk and has been an asset to her prison unit.
DOJ-OGR-00014810.jpg
This page contains a transcript of a victim impact statement delivered during court proceedings (likely sentencing) for Ghislaine Maxwell. The speaker, now a psychologist, describes the long-term professional and personal fear caused by Epstein and Maxwell's threats, and urges Judge Nathan to consider the systemic and ongoing suffering of the victims when determining Maxwell's sentence. The speaker criticizes Maxwell for failing to admit guilt or provide information after her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00014804.jpg
This document is page 57 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing or trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text captures a prosecutor's argument detailing specific acts of abuse committed by Maxwell, including groping a 16-year-old at a ranch, teaching a 14-year-old sexual acts, and procuring girls for her 'boyfriend' (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein). The speaker emphasizes Maxwell's predatory nature, her indifference to the suffering of vulnerable girls from struggling families, and her active role in trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00014802.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge (The Court), Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim regarding the order of statements for an upcoming session, specifically coordinating when victims and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, will speak. The court sets the order as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, before taking a lunch recess until 1:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014797.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically establishing an offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. The defense preserves an objection regarding the inclusion of Virginia and Melissa as separate offense groups.
DOJ-OGR-00014795.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing guideline calculations for a defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell given the victim names and case context). The judge calculates offense levels based on five specific victim groups: Jane, Annie, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa. Enhancements are applied based on the victims' ages (specifically Jane and Carolyn being under 16), undue influence into commercial sex acts, and the defendant's supervisory role in the criminal activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014790.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discussing the legal definition of 'extensive' criminal activity for sentencing purposes. It details the hierarchy of the conspiracy, naming Epstein and the defendant as knowing participants, noting Sarah Kellen joined in 2002, and identifying Virginia and Carolyn as recruiters of minors starting in 2001. It also credits testimony from employee Juan Alessi regarding his unknowing facilitation of sexualized massages under the defendant's instructions and mentions pilots Visoski and Rodgers.
DOJ-OGR-00014788.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on sentencing guideline objections, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against an enhancement for sexual abuse of minors and moving to discuss an enhancement for her 'leadership role' in the criminal activity. The text references Congressional intent regarding the sentencing of sex offenders and the requirements for proving a defendant was an organizer or leader.
DOJ-OGR-00014777.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 22, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that Sarah Kellen was a 'criminal participant' subordinate to Maxwell in the conspiracy hierarchy, taking over tasks like scheduling victims so that Maxwell could move higher up in the leadership structure. The Judge questions the specific evidence proving Maxwell's supervision over Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00014767.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court transcript (Document 779) filed on August 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text records a defense attorney arguing that determining when offense conduct ended is a matter for the jury, specifically to avoid Ex Post Facto violations regarding sentencing guidelines. The speaker cites the 'Tykarsky' opinion and distinguishes the current situation from 'Apprendi' case law.
DOJ-OGR-00014760.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 22, 2022. The judge is overruling objections made by the defendant regarding the credibility of a witness named Carolyn. The court accepts as fact that Carolyn was introduced to Epstein by Virginia at age 14, visited Epstein's Palm Beach residence over 100 times, and performed sexualized massages until 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00014759.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022, in which the judge overrules objections from the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant personally recruited Virginia (Giuffre) while she was a minor to provide sexualized massages to Epstein, was aware of the sexual nature of these acts, and used monetary incentives to encourage Virginia to recruit another minor, Carolyn. The judge cites testimony from witnesses Annie, Jane, Kate, and Mr. Alessi, as well as flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00008661.jpg
This document is page 123 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Jury Instruction No. 31 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the charge of Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The text explains the legal definition of conspiracy as a 'criminal partnership' and clarifies that a defendant can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crime was not committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008654.jpg
This document is page 116 of 167 from a court filing (Document 563) dated December 18, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains Jury Instruction No. 26 regarding the first element of Count Six: Sex Trafficking of an Individual Under the Age of 18. The text explicitly names 'Carolyn' as the specific individual the Government must prove Maxwell knowingly recruited or trafficked.
DOJ-OGR-00008646.jpg
This document is page 108 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 18, which defines the legal statute for Count Four regarding the transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity