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-00008521.jpg
This document is page 65 of a court filing (Document 562) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 46, which directs the jury on how to weigh testimony provided by law enforcement officials and government employees, specifically noting that such testimony should not automatically receive greater weight than that of ordinary witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008516.jpg
This document is page 60 of court filing 562 (Jury Instructions) from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' explaining to the jury how to logically deduce facts from evidence versus guessing. Crucially, it instructs the jury that they cannot infer Maxwell's guilt based solely on her presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008514.jpg
This document is page 58 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 41: Time of Offense,' which instructs the jury that the Government is not required to prove the exact dates of the alleged conduct, provided it occurred 'on or about' the alleged times.
DOJ-OGR-00008509.jpg
This document is page 53 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains Jury Instruction No. 37 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the 'Fourth Element' of Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law. It instructs the jury that the Government must prove an 'overt act' was committed to further the conspiracy, clarifying that such an act does not need to be inherently criminal on its own.
DOJ-OGR-00008492.jpg
This document constitutes Jury Instruction No. 28 from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines the legal standards for 'Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor,' specifically regarding a victim named Carolyn. The instruction clarifies that consent is not a defense if the victim is under 18 and defines 'commercial sex act' broadly to include the exchange of anything of value.
DOJ-OGR-00008488.jpg
This document is page 32 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It presents 'Instruction No. 24' for a jury, which defines the statute for 'Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor'. The text quotes directly from Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 to explain the elements of the crime.
DOJ-OGR-00008487.jpg
This document is page 31 of 82 from a court filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 23 regarding Counts Two and Four, clarifying that for the charges of enticement and transportation, the Government need only prove the Defendant had the requisite intent, and it is immaterial whether the intended sexual activity actually occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00008486.jpg
This document is page 30 of 82 from a court filing filed on December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It contains Jury Instruction No. 22 regarding Count Four (Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity), specifically the 'Third Element,' which requires the Government to prove Ms. Maxwell knew the victim, 'Jane,' was under seventeen years old.
DOJ-OGR-00008479.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court filing (Document 562) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. It contains Jury Instruction No. 16 regarding Count Two: Enticement to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity. The instruction defines the second element of the crime, specifically explaining the requirement to prove travel in 'interstate commerce.'
DOJ-OGR-00008473.jpg
This is page 17 of 82 from a legal filing (Document 562) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The text clarifies that Count Six of the indictment charges the Defendant with sex trafficking of minors specifically regarding an individual named Carolyn during the time period of 2001 to 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00008461.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It serves as a table of contents for a series of jury instructions (numbers 54-59), covering topics such as witnesses, evidence, jury deliberations, and communications with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00008459.jpg
This document is the table of contents for jury instructions in the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. It outlines the structure of the instructions, covering the roles of the court and jury, general legal principles like the presumption of innocence, and specific charges including conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00008458.jpg
This document is the cover page for a 'Draft Jury Charge' filed on December 17, 2021, in the criminal case of the United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 Cr. 330). It was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00008457.jpg
This document is a court order filed on December 17, 2021, by District Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order attaches a draft jury charge and verdict sheet and instructs counsel to be prepared to provide suggestions for changes at a charging conference scheduled for the following day, December 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a joint proposal from the prosecution and defense regarding the presentation of closing arguments. The parties argue that alternatives like toggling monitors or using printed binders for the jury are unworkable due to potential interruptions, logistical difficulties, and the risk of inadvertently exposing sealed material, which would violate the privacy of victims and third parties. They propose instead to provide redacted copies of their presentation slides to the public on the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00008434.jpg
This document is a legal letter filed on December 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests permission for a witness, Mr. Hamilton, to testify remotely from London via WebEx because he has tested positive for COVID-19 and cannot travel. The defense argues that precluding his testimony would violate Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense and confront accusers, specifically mentioning the need to expose the bias of an accuser named Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00008423.jpg
This is the second and final page of a legal document (Document 551) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 16, 2021. The document was signed in New York, New York by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. A Department of Justice Bates number (DOJ-OGR-00008423) is present at the bottom of the page.
DOJ-OGR-00008422.jpg
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 16, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge orders the parties to submit letters by 10:15 p.m. that same day citing legal authority regarding the admission of prior inconsistent statements and the application of Rule 613(b). The parties are also ordered to docket these letters by the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00008418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion involves the admissibility of evidence regarding 'non-testifying alleged victims' and 'prior statements of Ms. Maxwell' (referred to as government 8). The government attorney, Ms. Moe, mentions producing a large volume of electronically-stored discovery to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge discusses procedural matters regarding background information for the jury and addresses 'No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues.' Attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Christian Everdell (Defense) are present, and the court suggests deferring the consent argument to the discussion of the Rule 412 motion due to overlapping issues.
DOJ-OGR-00008400.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The text contains legal arguments discussing case law precedents (*Kyles* and *Watson v. Greene*) regarding the admissibility of evidence related to the thoroughness of a law enforcement investigation and *Brady* material obligations. The text specifically analyzes a precedent involving a shooting investigation to argue about what lines of cross-examination should be permitted regarding police diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically page 5 of 6 from Document 548 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. The Court denies the Defense's request for a witness to testify under a pseudonym, arguing that the witness does not qualify as a victim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because her anticipated testimony is that she was not a target of sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court distinguishes this situation from a prior ruling where pseudonyms were allowed to protect the identities of other, actual victims.
DOJ-OGR-00008385.jpg
A legal letter from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter argues that the government used suggestive questioning techniques on accusers, specifically citing an instance where a witness named 'Jane' changed her testimony regarding a trip to New York and seeing 'The Lion King' after pressure from AUSA Rossmiller. The defense uses this to justify the necessity of expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding memory and suggestive questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00008378.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 5 of 9) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 15, 2021. It argues against the defense's attempt to call attorney Scarola to the stand to testify about his client Carolyn's cooperation with the government and the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (EVCP), citing attorney-client privilege and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (prejudice/confusion). The text asserts that Carolyn was unaware of when the EVCP began accepting claims when she decided to cooperate, negating the defense's theory of financial bias.
DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 545) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 15, 2021. The text argues against a motion by the defendant to compel victims' attorneys to testify, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. The argument emphasizes that forcing counsel to testify against their clients, particularly victims of sexual abuse, is legally disfavored and damaging to the attorney-client relationship.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity