SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017266.jpg
This document is page 245 of a court transcript (Jury Charge) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains specific legal instructions from the judge to the jury regarding how to handle redacted evidence, the definition and weight of 'Stipulations' (Instruction No. 57), and the prohibition against the jury considering potential punishment during deliberations (Instruction No. 58).
DOJ-OGR-00017265.jpg
This document is page 244 of the jury charge in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 55, advising jurors that witness preparation by lawyers is standard procedure and not improper, and begins Instruction No. 56 regarding redacted documents submitted as evidence. The page emphasizes that jurors should not speculate why other persons are not on trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017262.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a criminal trial, case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It contains two specific instructions: Instruction No. 49, which directs the jury not to draw any negative inference from the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, decision not to testify, and Instruction No. 50, which advises the jury not to make assumptions based on uncalled witnesses, as both parties had an equal opportunity to call them.
DOJ-OGR-00017261.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) containing jury instructions regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The judge instructs the jury on how to interpret evidence of 'similar acts' introduced by the government, warning them not to use it as proof of bad character but potentially to determine intent, lack of mistake, or the existence of a common scheme or plan.
DOJ-OGR-00017260.jpg
This document is page 239 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions, specifically Instruction No. 47 regarding 'Expert Testimony.' The instruction explains that while experts can offer opinions based on their special knowledge, the jury must not blindly accept their testimony and should use their own judgment to determine the facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017258.jpg
This legal document is a page of jury instructions from a court case involving Ms. Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury on how to assess witness credibility, clarifying that the use of pseudonyms for witness privacy should not influence their evaluation. It specifically details Instruction No. 45, which states that a witness's prior inconsistent statement should only be used to judge the credibility of their trial testimony, not as direct evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00017257.jpg
This document is page 236 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains jury instructions regarding the evaluation of witness credibility, specifically focusing on how the jury should weigh the testimony of a witness who is a convicted felon. The text instructs jurors to use their common sense and everyday experience to determine if the witness is truthful despite their criminal record.
DOJ-OGR-00017256.jpg
This document is page 235 of 257 from a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains jury instructions ('Charge') regarding the evaluation of witness credibility. It specifically instructs the jury on how to handle witnesses who may have lied under oath, provided contradictory testimony, or who have a personal interest in the outcome of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017255.jpg
This document is page 234 of the jury charge filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The page contains specific legal instructions to the jury, warning them not to infer guilt solely based on Maxwell's association with wrongdoers. It also introduces Instruction No. 44, guiding the jury on how to evaluate the credibility, honesty, and demeanor of witnesses using their common sense.
DOJ-OGR-00017254.jpg
This document is a transcript of a jury charge from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury on the legal definition of an inference, distinguishing it from speculation and explaining how to draw reasonable conclusions from evidence. The judge specifically warns the jury that they cannot find the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty based solely on her presence at and knowledge of a crime being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017253.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically a jury charge from a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text contains Instruction No. 43, which explains the concepts of circumstantial evidence and inferences to the jury. It clarifies that circumstantial evidence holds the same legal value as direct evidence and reminds the jury that they must be convinced of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell's, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00017252.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically jury instructions from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The text, labeled "Instruction No. 42," defines and differentiates between direct and circumstantial evidence for the jury. A hypothetical example is used to illustrate circumstantial evidence, involving inferring rain from observing people entering a courtroom with a wet umbrella and raincoat.
DOJ-OGR-00017250.jpg
This document is page 229 of a court transcript (Document 767) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains jury instructions delivered by the judge explaining the legal concept of 'conscious avoidance' in relation to conspiracy charges, clarifying that deliberate ignorance can imply knowledge but cannot substitute for intent to join a conspiracy. The page concludes by introducing Instruction No. 40 regarding Venue and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00017248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, containing a judge's instructions to a jury. The judge explains the legal standards for considering the acts of a coconspirator as evidence against the defendant and defines the concept of "conscious avoidance," where a person can be found to have acted knowingly if they deliberately ignored obvious facts.
DOJ-OGR-00017247.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a jury instruction (Instruction No. 38) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The instruction explains the concept of coconspirator liability, informing the jury that members of a conspiracy are legally considered partners and are responsible for the foreseeable acts and statements of all other members made in furtherance of the conspiracy. It directs that such acts can be considered as evidence against a defendant if they are found to have participated in the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00017246.jpg
This document is page 225 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, containing jury instructions (Charge) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines legal standards for 'overt acts' regarding conspiracy charges, specifically Instruction No. 37. It explicitly instructs the jury that they cannot convict Maxwell on Counts One or Three solely based on the testimony of a witness named 'Kate'.
DOJ-OGR-00017245.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, outlines allegations of overt acts in a conspiracy case. It describes how between 2001 and 2004, Epstein's employees sent gifts, including lingerie, to a woman named Carolyn and that Epstein, Maxwell, or employees called her to schedule massages for Epstein. The document concludes with a legal argument explaining that to convict Ms. Maxwell of conspiracy, the prosecution only needs to prove that any member of the conspiracy committed an overt act, not necessarily Maxwell herself.
DOJ-OGR-00017244.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Charge to the jury) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing specific overt acts committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines incidents from 1996 through 2004 involving three specific victims (referred to as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn), including interstate travel for sexual abuse, unsolicited sexual contact in New Mexico, and the recruitment of minors for paid sex acts at the Palm Beach residence.
DOJ-OGR-00017243.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions regarding overt acts in a conspiracy charge. It lists specific allegations against Maxwell involving minors named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, describing events such as travel for sexual abuse and unsolicited massages in locations like New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00017242.jpg
This document is page 221 of a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) containing jury instructions (Charge) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the legal standards for conspiracy, specifically addressing the presumption of continuity in a conspiracy, the requirements for withdrawal, and Instruction No. 36 regarding the 'Third Element' which requires the government to prove an 'overt act' was committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017241.jpg
This document is page 220 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing jury instructions regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge explains the legal standards for conspiracy liability, clarifying that while a single act or limited role is sufficient for conviction, mere presence at a crime scene or association with conspirators without knowledge and intent to participate is not sufficient. The text also notes that receiving financial benefit is not a necessary requirement for proving participation in the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00017240.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) against Ms. Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. The text instructs the jury on the legal standards for proving participation in a conspiracy, clarifying that the government does not need to show that Ms. Maxwell knew all the details, activities, or members of the conspiracy. It also states that she is responsible for all acts of the conspiracy committed while she was a member, regardless of when she joined.
DOJ-OGR-00017239.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a portion of a charge or jury instruction concerning Ms. Maxwell. It defines the terms 'knowingly and willfully' and explains that for a conviction on a conspiracy charge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell consciously intended to join and further an unlawful operation. The text instructs that since one cannot directly know a person's thoughts, the jury must infer knowledge and intent from evidence, such as alleged conversations involving Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017237.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing the charge in Count Three of an indictment. The charge alleges that the defendant participated in a conspiracy from approximately 1994 to 2004 to transport individuals under the age of 17 for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. The document outlines the object of the conspiracy and the legal requirement to prove an agreement between the defendant and at least one other person.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity