courtroom
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00032792.pdf
This document contains an email thread from April 2021 between an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) and attorneys Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson regarding the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'. The correspondence discusses scheduling for an in-person arraignment before Judge Nathan and a remote bail appeal before the Second Circuit, and inquires about the attendance of Edwards' client.
EFTA00009901.pdf
Court order filed on April 19, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the arraignment of Ghislaine Maxwell scheduled for April 23, 2021. The document outlines logistical details including COVID-19 protocols (masks, temperature checks), public access via overflow rooms and teleconference, and prohibitions on recording. It also sets deadlines for the Government and Defense to notify the court regarding the attendance of victims and the defendant's family members.
DOJ-OGR-00017979.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Alessi) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case US v. Maxwell. The witness, Mr. Alessi, testifies that he met Ghislaine Maxwell around 1991 while working for Jeffrey Epstein and interacted with her on a daily basis until he left in 2002. During the proceeding, Alessi identifies Maxwell in the courtroom, noting she is wearing a black sweater.
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-00008231.jpg
This legal filing from December 5, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues for the exclusion of specific evidence in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that 2019 photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's house are irrelevant and prejudicial because items like massage tables and artwork are 'highly mobile' and may not reflect the conditions present when the accuser, Jane, was there in 1994-1996. The document asserts that the photos are inflammatory and lack connection to Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00000783.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from July 16-23, 2019, detailing the proceedings of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 19-2221). It documents the denial of Epstein's bail during a hearing on July 18, 2019, presided over by Judge Richard M. Berman, attended by FBI and NYPD representatives. Following the remand order, Epstein's defense team filed a Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2019, along with a sealed document placed in the vault.
DOJ-OGR-00020898.jpg
Pages 17 and 18 of a transcript from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal/post-trial hearings). A juror is being questioned about whether they intentionally provided inaccurate answers regarding a history of sexual abuse to get on the jury. The juror admits they did not fill out the questionnaire with diligence because they felt rushed and did not believe they would be selected.
DOJ-OGR-00020687.jpg
This document is a court docket entry from February 28, 2023, for Case 22-1426, primarily concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It details court orders and filings from November 2021, including COVID-19 protocols for courthouse access, scheduling revisions for motions in limine, and a pretrial conference. The entries highlight communications between the prosecution (USA) and defense (Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys) regarding trial logistics and a ruling on witness testimony, all overseen by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00020655.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from the SDNY court case regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from April 16 to April 19, 2021. It details various motions to dismiss and suppress evidence filed by Maxwell's defense team, orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan setting an arraignment date for April 23, 2021, and procedural orders regarding the severance of perjury counts and the handling of redacted documents. The document highlights the legal maneuvering regarding the S2 Superseding Indictment and disputes over evidence obtained via subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00020544.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (dated November 9, 2021). It contains orders from Judge Alison Nathan regarding the logistics of *voir dire* (jury selection), including the use of pseudonyms for witnesses, and schedules a sealed *in camera* hearing regarding Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence). Additionally, it logs letters from the defense regarding bond release and from the prosecution regarding victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00020517.jpg
This document is a court docket page (Page 31 of 92) listing entries from April 16 to April 19, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It details several filings by Maxwell's defense team (Everdell, Menninger, Pagliuca) including motions to dismiss counts of the superseding indictment and suppress evidence. Key orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan schedule an arraignment for the S2 Superseding Indictment for April 23, 2021, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, sever perjury counts for a separate trial, and request government intent regarding the use of disputed subpoenaed documents.
DOJ-OGR-00020416.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) covering April 16-19, 2021. It details various filings including defense motions to dismiss indictments and suppress evidence (specifically mentioning 'Martindell' issues and protective orders), and orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan scheduling an arraignment for the S2 Superseding Indictment. The document also notes the scheduling of separate trials for perjury and non-perjury counts.
DOJ-OGR-00020413.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between March 31, 2021, and April 14, 2021. Key events include the scheduling and rescheduling of an arraignment on a Second Superseding Indictment to April 23, 2021, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. The document also details a denial by Judge Nathan of a defense request to allow Maxwell to possess materials in courthouse cellblocks, citing U.S. Marshal policy.
DOJ-OGR-00016129.jpg
This document is page 19 of 106 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains standard jury instructions delivered by the judge, explaining that statements by lawyers, objections, and excluded testimony do not constitute evidence. The judge instructs the jury to rely on their common sense and life experience when evaluating testimony and exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00016113.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details the presiding judge's instructions to counsel regarding the final phase of jury selection, specifically managing 58 remaining jurors. The judge outlines the process for asking jurors about bias ('fair and impartial'), questioning those who raise concerns in the witness box, and the logistical procedure for exercising peremptory strikes at sidebar to select primary and alternate jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00002417.jpg
This document is page 8 of a defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021, arguing that Virginia Giuffre's defamation claims against Ghislaine Maxwell were based on lies and that Giuffre attempted to shift the focus to being 'sexually trafficked' by Epstein to third parties. It details the legal history of Maxwell's depositions and a protective order granted to shield confidential information from a 'media circus.' A footnote references a concurrent lawsuit between Giuffre and Alan Dershowitz, noting Dershowitz filed evidence suggesting Giuffre and her lawyers fabricated stories.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013429.jpg
This document is an archived page from the Palm Beach Daily News dated June 11, 2009, discussing the legal battle to unseal Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal. It features statements from attorney Edwards, representing three underage victims, and Deanna Shullman, representing the press, both arguing that the sealing of the plea agreement is unusual and violates public records rights in Florida. The document is stamped with 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013429', indicating it is part of a congressional investigation file.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity