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-00008334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of expert testimony provided by a Mr. Flatley concerning digital forensics and metadata. The judge instructs the parties on how to handle differing expert opinions on forensic principles.
DOJ-OGR-00008325.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Dec 10, 2021) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The Judge instructs the attorney to prioritize using physical binders for cross-examination exhibits rather than relying solely on digital screens, though exceptions are allowed. The document is stamped with a Department of Justice identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00008321.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated December 10, 2021. The dialogue is between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and the Court regarding the logistics of presenting evidence; specifically, they agree that while electronic display is standard, sensitive documents containing identifying information of victims should be provided to jurors in paper binders to prevent them from being seen on public courtroom screens.
DOJ-OGR-00008314.jpg
A transcript page from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that certain past offenses, such as juvenile curfew violations and old misdemeanors, should not be grounds for cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) argues that the government's list includes items within the rules. The Judge intervenes, instructing the attorneys to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to reach an agreement and to submit any remaining good-faith disputes in writing for judicial resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00008313.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court to request a briefing schedule to preclude defense counsel from cross-examining government witnesses on specific topics, citing concerns about witness anonymization, embarrassment, and irrelevant criminal convictions. The Court instructs the parties to engage in further discussion to narrow their disputes before submitting a briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 9, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules the Defense's objections to the admission of a 'directory' (contact book) on both authentication and hearsay grounds. The Judge cites Second Circuit precedents (Al-Moayad, Londono) to establish that address books can be admitted for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the possessor of the document to the names listed within, rather than proving the accuracy of the contact details.
DOJ-OGR-00008307.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 9, 2021, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text discusses the legal admissibility of Government Exhibit 52 (GX 52), identified as a household directory from the Palm Beach property. The court argues that witness Mr. Alessi sufficiently authenticated the book based on his familiarity with it, despite Defense objections regarding the chain of custody and physical alterations (Post-it notes, pencil markings).
DOJ-OGR-00008291.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed Dec 9, 2021). Maxwell is being questioned about a specific document containing contact information that a redacted individual turned over to the FBI, claiming it came from her computer. Maxwell denies recollection of the document and states she was not responsible for updating or keeping records of individuals Jeffrey Epstein hired.
DOJ-OGR-00008282.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit B', filed on December 9, 2021, as part of the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The page itself contains no substantive information beyond identifying the document as an exhibit and includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) control number in the footer.
DOJ-OGR-00008274.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 533) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 9, 2021. It presents legal arguments under Section I 'Applicable Law' to support the admission of Government Exhibit 52, citing various Second Circuit precedents to establish that the bar for authenticating evidence is 'not particularly high.' The text argues that challenges to reliability should go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008258.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 8, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding stipulations on evidence, noting a disagreement with the defense regarding the authentication of certain birth certificates and a prior sworn statement. She also indicates the government intends to confer with the defense regarding limits on cross-examination of government witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008255.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 8, 2021) discussing pre-trial motions in limine. The Court discusses the schedule for ruling on the Government's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert witnesses Drs. Loftus and Dietz (likely Elizabeth Loftus and Park Dietz). The text also mentions disputes regarding Government Exhibit 52 and the introduction of co-conspirator statements, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 23.
DOJ-OGR-00008248.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on December 8, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Court and defense attorney Ms. Menninger regarding the classification of prospective jurors 226 and 404. The judge outlines the logistics for voir dire, planning to call back 231 prospective jurors in groups of 50 per day to seat a final qualified pool of 50 to 60.
DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated December 6, 2021. It argues against the defense's claim that a witness named Jane waived her attorney-client privilege regarding advice received from her lawyer, Glassman, about cooperating with the government. The text asserts that Jane did not authorize a waiver, did not testify about privileged communications, and that any statements made by Glassman to the government do not constitute a subject matter waiver for Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) argues that attorney-client privilege protects communications between a witness named 'Jane' and her attorney 'Glassman.' It asserts that Glassman could not waive this privilege as it belongs to Jane, and distinguishes the situation from the 'Bergonzi' case precedent regarding documents prepared for the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00008238.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Document 528) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 6, 2021. It is a legal memorandum arguing points regarding attorney-client privilege, specifically focusing on waiver and implied waiver. The text cites various legal precedents (United States v. Krug, In re von Bulow) to establish that privilege belongs to the client and cannot generally be waived by the attorney without consent, unless the client asserts an advice-of-counsel defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008232.jpg
This document is page 8 of a defense filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated December 5, 2021. The defense argues against the admission of government evidence, specifically photos of vibrators, a stuffed tiger, and a stuffed dog, claiming 'Jane' did not identify these specific items in her testimony. The defense also challenges photos of the interior of Epstein's New York apartment, arguing they are unauthenticated and potentially misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00008215.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 4, 2021. It discusses legal standards for the relevance and admissibility of evidence, citing case law regarding remote evidence and continuity of conduct (specifically regarding sexual interest in minors). The discussion section argues that 'photographs in the 900 series' corroborate statements made by a witness identified as 'Jane.'
DOJ-OGR-00001921.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The defense attorney argues to the judge that the defendant, her associates, and the legal team at Haddon Morgan have received death threats and physical threats. The attorney contends these safety concerns are preventing individuals from coming forward to support a bail package and criticizes the government for dismissing the severity of these threats.
DOJ-OGR-00001910.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. The discussion between the Court and prosecutor Ms. Moe concerns the details of the defendant's arrest, specifically confirming that the defendant ignored law enforcement commands to open the door and retreated to a separate room. The Court also notes an allegation that the defendant attempted to block location monitoring by wrapping a cell phone in foil.
DOJ-OGR-00001883.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 10, 2020. It records a dialogue between defense attorney Mr. Cohen, the Judge ('The Court'), and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The discussion concerns Maxwell waiving her right to be physically present for the proceeding and agreeing to proceed via videoconference, with the judge confirming the waiver is knowing and voluntary.
DOJ-OGR-00001881.jpg
Page 4 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated December 10, 2020. The text records the opening of a remote arraignment and bail hearing, with the Judge (The Court) confirming the presence of counsel Ms. Moe, Court Reporter Kristen Carannante, and Pretrial Services Officer Leah Harmon. The Judge notes the proceeding is being held remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic under the CARES Act.
DOJ-OGR-00001875.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal letter dated December 7, 2020, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim. The letter requests the immediate elimination of 'onerous' and 'restrictive' detention conditions for her client, Ms. Maxwell. Copies of the letter were sent via email to four other attorneys involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00001813.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a Government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 30, 2020. It addresses delays in electronic discovery production due to vendor volume and refutes defense accusations regarding the definition of the 'Prosecution Team' and the withholding of exculpatory material. A significant footnote (Footnote 2) argues that the 'genesis' of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant because the current defendant (Maxwell) was not a party to it, was not named in it, and the agreement covered a different time period.
DOJ-OGR-00001785.jpg
This document, a court filing from October 6, 2020, outlines charges against Maxwell, including enticing and transporting minors for illegal sex acts, and perjury, with conduct dating between 1994 and 1997. It details the Government's handling of 'Materials' (documents and photographs) related to a broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, explaining that while these materials post-date the indictment's period and won't be used as direct trial evidence, they will be produced to the defense under a protective order due to victim identification concerns and ongoing investigation risks.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity