AJN
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Judge defendant |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | This photograph was submitted as evidence, labeled 'Government Exhibit 237', in the criminal case... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | This photograph was entered as Government Exhibit 903-R in the court case S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | This document is Exhibit 932 for the criminal case S2 20 Cr. 330. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A photograph was entered into evidence as 'GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 51-C' for the case 'S2 20 Cr. 330 (... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | This photograph was entered as evidence, designated Government Exhibit 224-R, in the criminal cas... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | This photograph was entered as evidence (Exhibit 904-R) in the criminal case S2 20 Cr. 330. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | This photograph was entered as evidence, designated as Government Exhibit 211, in the legal case ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A notebook was entered as evidence, designated as Government Exhibit 601 in case 52 20 Cr. 330 (A... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001146.jpg
This document is the first page of the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail, filed on December 18, 2020. The Government argues that the Court's previous July 2020 ruling—that Maxwell poses a serious flight risk and has extensive financial resources/foreign ties—remains correct and should not be reversed. The prosecution asserts that the new motion merely repackages prior arguments and that no combination of conditions can ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001143.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing from the U.S. Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Filed on June 25, 2020, in the Southern District of New York, it is a memorandum opposing Maxwell's renewed motion for release. The document lists the prosecuting attorneys, including Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss.
DOJ-OGR-00001132.jpg
This document is page 30 of a defense filing (Document 197) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 14, 2020. The defense argues that despite the government's initial claims of 'strong' evidence backed by flight logs and diaries, the discovery produced (over 1.2 million documents) contains 'no meaningful documentary corroboration' of the allegations for the indictment period of 1994-1997. The text notes that the majority of evidence produced relates to the 2000s and 2010s, and mentions electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00001099.jpg
This is a single page (page ii) from a table of contents in a legal filing dated April 1, 2021. It outlines section G of a defense motion arguing that confinement conditions are oppressive and detrimental to Ghislaine Maxwell's health and defense preparation. The document bears a DOJ bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00000986.jpg
This legal document is a reply memorandum filed by the U.S. Government in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government argues for her continued detention, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her citizenship in a non-extraditing country and her access to considerable wealth. The memorandum emphasizes that her release would deny justice to the victims of her alleged sexual exploitation crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00000981.jpg
This document is page 20 (filed page 25) of a legal motion filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six friends and relatives, secured additionally by $3.75 million in UK property, alongside home detention, GPS monitoring, and private security within NY districts. The text argues that COVID-19 increases her risk in detention and cites *United States v. Boustani* regarding the use of private security guards for wealthy defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000960.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a legal filing (Document 18) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and several other cases regarding bail and detention, referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
DOJ-OGR-00000946.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing titled "THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION" in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Filed on July 5, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the memorandum was submitted by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss and her team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00021047.jpg
This document is a receipt from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 7, 2022. It confirms a $505.00 credit card payment made by Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell for a 'Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee' related to case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.
DOJ-OGR-00020988.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 45-page legal filing (Document 657) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on April 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Applicable law' regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicitous' indictments and how courts determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It cites various Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedents to establish the legal standard for reviewing such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
This document is page 39 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rejects the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on Juror 50's conduct, concluding that Juror 50 did not commit perjury, was not biased, and testified credibly at a post-trial hearing regarding his failure to disclose prior sexual abuse during the questionnaire phase. The judge rules that the 'McDonough inquiry' standard for a new trial was not met.
DOJ-OGR-00020965.jpg
This document is a page from a court ruling (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) addressing the conduct of 'Juror 50.' The text analyzes whether Juror 50 intended to deceive the court by not disclosing his history of sexual abuse on a questionnaire in November 2021, despite discussing it in media interviews in January 2022. The Court considers his explanation that watching the victims testify inspired him to speak out, and that he believed using only his first name in interviews would maintain his anonymity among friends and family.
DOJ-OGR-00020964.jpg
This document is page 21 of a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing post-trial arguments by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) regarding Juror 50. The Court analyzes whether Juror 50 was dishonest about his sexual abuse history, noting that while he claimed he rarely disclosed it, he later gave media interviews and contacted witness Annie Farmer. The Court recounts Juror 50's explanation that he did not believe his family or friends would discover his abuse despite the media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00020957.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal standards for investigating juror misconduct, specifically whether a juror lied during voir dire and the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606 regarding inquiring into jury deliberations. It cites various precedents (McCoy, Nix, Tanner) to establish the boundaries of a 'McDonough inquiry' into juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00020943.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing, identified as page 29 of Document 638 in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on March 9, 2022. It contains a handwritten note identifying "Juror ID: 50" on an otherwise blank, lined page. The page also includes header information for another case, 22-1426, and a Department of Justice document identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00020941.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a juror questionnaire or notes page, identified as page 27 of 29 in Document 638 from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on March 9, 2022. The page is mostly blank ruled lines but contains a handwritten notation identifying "Juror ID: 50". The header also references another case, 22-1426, and the footer includes a Department of Justice Bates number.
DOJ-OGR-00020936.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Page 22 of 29) filled out by Juror ID 50 for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to Question 47 regarding difficulty assessing the credibility of sexual assault witnesses and 'No' to Question 48 regarding personal or family history of sexual harassment or assault. The document bears a filing date of March 9, 2022, and a later processing stamp from February 28, 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00020920.jpg
This document is a page from a completed juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 9, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to having beliefs that prevent rendering a verdict, and 'Yes' to accepting legal principles regarding the judge's instructions and the presumption of innocence. The document bears a Department of Justice stamp (DOJ-OGR-00020920) and appears to be part of a larger appellate record filed in February 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00020915.jpg
This document is a court exhibit containing the 'Preliminary Instructions' for a juror questionnaire submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It is dated March 8, 2022, and filed on March 9, 2022, specifically for 'Juror ID: 50' regarding the 'US v. Maxwell Post-verdict hearing' (Case 20cr330). The text outlines strict instructions for the juror, including the requirement for truthfulness, a ban on discussing the case, and a prohibition on conducting outside research.
DOJ-OGR-00020789.jpg
This page is from a court order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court addresses discovery disputes, specifically ruling that the Government's agreement to produce 'Giglio' and 'Jencks Act' materials six weeks prior to trial is sufficient for Maxwell to prepare, noting the Court lacks authority to force earlier disclosure of Jencks material. The Court also denies Maxwell's request for a pretrial hearing regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, opting instead for conditional admission at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020785.jpg
This is page 26 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page covers two main points: the Court's decision to sever perjury counts to ensure a fair trial, and the denial (as premature) of Maxwell's motion to strike 'surplusage' regarding allegations involving 'Minor Victim-3' and activities that occurred in England.
DOJ-OGR-00020781.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court ruling (Document 207) filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is denying Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts, arguing that the ambiguity of questions and the materiality of her statements are issues of fact for a jury to decide, not grounds for pretrial dismissal. The text cites legal precedents regarding perjury, materiality in civil depositions, and the role of the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00020778.jpg
This legal document is a court filing addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss charges from an indictment, specifically the Mann Act counts, arguing they lack specificity. The Court denies the motion, concluding that the S1 superseding indictment is sufficiently clear under established legal precedent, which only requires tracking the statutory language and providing the time and place in approximate terms. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is too vague regarding time periods, conduct described, and the identification of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00020772.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's rejection of Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the 2003 PROTECT Act and retroactive application of laws to past conduct. The legal analysis relies on precedents such as 'Weingarten' and 'Landgraf'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity