SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017326.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving legal arguments over jury instructions for 'Count Four' (a transportation count). Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim debate how to address a jury question concerning whether flights to New Mexico can be considered for a charge based on New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The defense (Sternheim) argues the jury is confused about jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell) regarding a jury question. The conversation focuses on how to properly instruct the jury on 'Count Four', specifically concerning the intent and purpose of travel in relation to an 'aiding and abetting' charge. The judge resolves the ambiguity by directing the jury to review the full written instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. They are debating how to respond to a confusing note from the jury, as the placement of a comma in the jury's question drastically changes its meaning regarding responsibility for a flight to New Mexico. Ms. Moe argues that the note is too ambiguous to answer directly and suggests referring the jury back to their instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017323.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript recording a discussion between the Court and Ms. Menninger regarding jury instructions and legal interpretations of a specific count. They clarify whether the prosecution must prove aid in transportation specifically to New Mexico, with Ms. Menninger arguing that the location is not specific and could be any place where illegal sexual activity was intended, such as New York.
DOJ-OGR-00017322.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, regarding the legal standard for finding a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane'. The discussion specifically focuses on whether a flight to New Mexico must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' for illegal sexual activity to meet the criteria for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00017321.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding a note sent by the jury during deliberations. The debate centers on whether the jury is asking about the general legal concept of 'aiding and abetting' or specifically about Ms. Maxwell's role in arranging flights to and from New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00017320.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument concerning jury deliberations in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion focuses on whether Maxwell arranged flights for a victim named 'Jane' to or from New Mexico, whether such travel constitutes a crime under Count Four (corrected from Count Two), and the confusion surrounding a specific note sent by the jury regarding these hypothetical facts.
DOJ-OGR-00017319.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge discuss a jury note regarding transportation and accountability for a return flight from New Mexico. The debate centers on whether Maxwell can be convicted based on arranging a return flight from an area where a victim, 'Jane,' claims sexual abuse occurred, as opposed to the initial flight to New Mexico which had alleged illegal intent.
DOJ-OGR-00017318.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding a question from the jury. The parties are trying to decide how to clarify an instruction related to a 'multi-leg trip' and 'Count Four', with Mr. Everdell suggesting a specific text and Ms. Moe arguing it is not what the jury is asking about.
DOJ-OGR-00017317.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, dated August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a discussion between MR. EVERDELL and MS. MOE, addressing 'Your Honor,' regarding a defendant's alleged role in transporting 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. The central issue is whether these flights were intended for illegal sexual activity and if the defendant's actions constitute aiding and abetting, with the jury currently deliberating on these points for a potential conviction on Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00017316.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the purpose of travel undertaken by a person named Jane. An unnamed speaker argues that Jane's return trip from New Mexico was not for illicit sexual activity because Mr. Epstein was not present, while another speaker, Ms. Moe, counters that the evidence is ambiguous as to which flight is being discussed. The conversation centers on interpreting Jane's intent and whether her travel meets the elements of a crime.
DOJ-OGR-00017313.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the Judge and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks a legal question about 'Count Four,' specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' on a return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00017312.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The court receives a note from the jury requesting the transcript of testimony provided by David Rodgers (Epstein's pilot). The Judge and counsel (Ms. Moe for the government, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim for the defense) discuss the request and the schedule for jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017311.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the court and several individuals about a new rule requiring N95 or KN95 masks in the courthouse. The court also addresses the handling of two notes requesting evidence, specifically "Parkinson's transcript" (to be provided) and "Matt's transcript" (which has already been sent).
DOJ-OGR-00017309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), and two attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe). They are discussing how to respond to a note from the jury, which requested a transcript of 'Matt's' testimony and a definition of 'enticement'. The judge decides to send the transcript and directs the jury to specific page and line numbers in the jury instructions for the definition.
DOJ-OGR-00017308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the legal definition of the word 'entice' for jury instructions. The Judge cites specific case law (*Almonte*, *Dupigny*, and *Broxmeyer*) to define the term as 'to attract, induce, or lure using hope or desire.'
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00017306.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details proceedings where the jury is not present, and the Court discusses a note received from the jury requesting office supplies (Post-Its, highlighters), a transcript of testimony by a person named "Matt," and a definition of the legal term "enticement." Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the original jury instructions stating that such terms have their "ordinary everyday meanings."
DOJ-OGR-00017305.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The trial took place on December 27, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, with the Honorable Alison J. Nathan presiding as District Judge. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00017304.jpg
This is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings are taking place without the jury present. The Court discusses upcoming masking rules due to COVID-19 concerns, wishes the counsel happy holidays, and adjourns the trial until December 27, 2021. Ms. Comey (Prosecution) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters to discuss.
DOJ-OGR-00017303.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A speaker, presumably the judge, instructs a jury of twelve before a holiday break to avoid all media and communication about the case and to contact Ms. Williams with any concerns. The jury is told to return on the following Monday to resume their deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017302.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a judge addressing the jury before a long weekend. The judge acknowledges the jury's decision not to deliberate the next day, instructs them to resume on Monday at 9:00 a.m., and warns them of new, stricter COVID-19 mask requirements that will be implemented in the courthouse. The judge concludes by emphatically reminding the jurors of their duty not to discuss the case with anyone outside of formal deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017301.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a judge's management of jury proceedings. The judge notes the jury's desire to adhere to their plans for the next day, confirms that a limiting instruction regarding 'Annie's testimony' was correctly provided, and sets a 4:25 PM dismissal time. Counsel, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, confirm they have no further matters to discuss before the jury is brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00017299.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case where the judge and counsel discuss how to communicate with a deliberating jury about their schedule. The judge proposes a note asking if the jury wants to deliberate the next day, "December 23rd". After a recess, the court receives a note back from the jury requesting the testimonies of individuals named Jane and Kate Wong.
DOJ-OGR-00017297.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the moment the court adjourns the proceedings for the day, with participants Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim present. The session is scheduled to resume at 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2021.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity