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-00017033.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (summation by Ms. Moe) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor argues that photographs show a sexual partnership between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, specifically describing an image of Maxwell massaging Epstein's foot with her breasts. The text details the luxury lifestyle Maxwell enjoyed via Epstein's properties (NY, NM, Palm Beach, Paris, USVI) and cites testimony from house manager Juan Alessi establishing Maxwell as the 'lady of the house' starting in the early 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00017032.jpg
This document is a page from the closing arguments (summations) by Ms. Moe in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell was essential to Epstein's operation and highlights photographic evidence (specifically Government Exhibits 313 and 342) showing the pair's close, long-term relationship, including photos of them swimming naked together.
DOJ-OGR-00017031.jpg
This document is page 2843 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing the closing summation by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The text focuses on an essay written by Ghislaine Maxwell where she describes her close, 11-year relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as partners and a couple. The prosecutor argues this evidence proves Maxwell was not a mere assistant but a crucial participant in the scheme, using her respectable appearance to legitimize Epstein's predatory behavior toward underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00017027.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dialogue between the Judge (The Court) and attorneys Menninger, Rohrbach, and Everdell regarding the finalization of evidence exhibits (specifically a flash drive and physical exhibits) to be sent to the jury. The page concludes with the court announcing a recess to await the jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00017025.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the schedule for closing arguments, jury instructions ('charge'), and the commencement of jury deliberations. The Judge outlines a schedule involving government arguments, a lunch break, defense arguments, rebuttal, and the potential start of deliberations that same day.
DOJ-OGR-00017024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell case). The Judge and attorneys (Moe, Menninger, Sternheim) discuss balancing public access with necessary redactions and establish time limits for upcoming arguments, with the government requesting up to 2.5 hours. Attorney Sternheim shares a brief anecdote about Judge Motley to contextualize strict time limits.
DOJ-OGR-00017018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding procedural matters before the jury returns on a Monday at 8:30 AM. They discuss creating an agreed-upon list of admitted exhibits and redacting transcripts for potential jury review to avoid readbacks.
DOJ-OGR-00017013.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys Everdell and Rohrbach debating and agreeing upon the specific phrasing for legal charges with the Judge, specifically regarding 'sex trafficking' and 'conspiracy' counts involving individuals under the age of 18 and a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00017012.jpg
This document is page 86 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the specific wording of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six. They agree to replace the term 'minor' with 'individuals under the age of 17' and specify '(Jane only)' for certain counts.
DOJ-OGR-00017011.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of the verdict sheet and jury instructions. The parties agree to amend the language of Count One (conspiracy to entice) to refer to 'individuals' (plural) rather than 'an individual' under the age of 17.
DOJ-OGR-00017009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate over jury instructions and closing arguments, specifically regarding an 'empty chair' argument (likely referring to Epstein's absence) and the government's motivations for prosecution. The Judge (The Court) explicitly rules that there will be no argument allowed regarding the government's motivation.
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that there are witnesses the defense considered calling but did not because these individuals would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, as the government could have charged them criminally based on prior testimony. The Court acknowledges that the defense cannot offer immunity like the government can, but views the jury charge under discussion as standard.
DOJ-OGR-00017001.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding jury instruction no. 50 ('uncalled witnesses charge'). Everdell argues that the instruction should not be included because certain defense witnesses refused to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, noting the government's power to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00016998.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding 'Instruction 44' concerning the credibility of witnesses who are convicted felons. Mr. Everdell reads a proposed instruction text derived from 'Sand' (likely a legal reference book), which Mr. Rohrbach challenges as not being standard practice in that district.
DOJ-OGR-00016993.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the 'conscious avoidance' theory, stating that instructions to lie about age came from Virginia, not Ms. Maxwell. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach counters by citing testimony from Mr. Alessi regarding Maxwell recruiting at legitimate hotels, suggesting she may have confused underage girls with adults.
DOJ-OGR-00016992.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text captures a legal argument between Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding whether the defense has opened the door to the issue of Maxwell's knowledge of the victims' ages. Specific references are made to testimony from Larry Visoski, Kimberly Espinosa, and a victim named Carolyn, who was instructed to lie about her age at 'the house'.
DOJ-OGR-00016991.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the concept of 'conscious avoidance,' stating that the core issue is a factual dispute regarding the ages of alleged victims (specifically Jane and Kate) and whether the defense had any interaction with another individual named Carolyn. The defense cites testimony from Mr. Alessi stating he only saw two underage-looking individuals at Epstein's house, contrary to the inference of 'hundreds' of underage women.
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions regarding 'overt acts' involving witnesses named Jane, Annie, and Kate. The government agrees to remove an instruction related to Kate to avoid an improper conviction based solely on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016976.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of jury instructions, specifically distinguishing between 'minors' and 'individuals under the age of 18' in relation to sex trafficking and conspiracy counts. The judge also corrects a clerical error in the title of Instruction 36 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five.
DOJ-OGR-00016975.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge ('The Court'), regarding specific wording changes to Jury Instruction No. 34. The prosecution (Rohrbach) successfully argues that the phrase 'an individual under the age of 18' should be changed to 'individuals under the age of 18' to accurately reflect that the conspiracy charge involved multiple minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016966.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Everdell and the Judge discuss specific wording amendments to jury instructions or the verdict form, specifically requesting that Count Four be specified as relating 'solely to Jane.' They also discuss a discrepancy between the federal statute age definition (under 18) and New York law (under 17) regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016963.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity