SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017236.jpg
This document is page 215 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, containing Jury Instruction No. 34 regarding conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines the requirements for proving a conspiracy and details Count One, which charges Maxwell with conspiring between 1994 and 2004 to entice individuals under age 17 to travel for illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00017235.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically jury instructions/charge) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines the legal standards for proving a conspiracy, instructing the jury that an explicit written agreement is not required and that a conspiracy can be proven via circumstantial evidence and disconnected acts.
DOJ-OGR-00017234.jpg
This document is page 213 of 257 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instruction No. 33 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five, specifically defining the legal elements of 'Conspiracy to violate federal law.' The text explains that the essence of conspiracy is the agreement itself, regardless of whether the ultimate crime was successfully committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017233.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains Jury Instruction No. 32 regarding 'Conspiracy to violate federal law' (Counts One, Three, and Five). The judge defines conspiracy under Section 371 as a 'criminal partnership' and explicitly instructs that Ms. Maxwell can be found guilty of conspiracy even if the substantive crime was never committed.
DOJ-OGR-00017231.jpg
This document is page 210 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains the judge's charge to the jury regarding the legal standards for finding Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of 'aiding and abetting' in Counts Two, Four, and Six. The text defines the necessity of proving willful association with the crime while clarifying that mere presence or knowledge of the crime is insufficient for conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00017230.jpg
This document is a page from a legal charge (jury instruction) filed on August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It outlines the legal theory of "aiding and abetting," explaining that a defendant, specifically named as Ms. Maxwell, can be convicted for assisting in a crime even if she did not physically commit it herself. The text provides definitions for key terms like "counsel," "induce," and "procure" to guide the jury's deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00017229.jpg
This document is page 208 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains jury instructions regarding the legal definition of 'interstate commerce' in the context of sex trafficking, clarifying that actual travel is not required if the acts were economic in nature. It also introduces Instruction No. 30 regarding 'Aiding and abetting' for Counts Two, Four, and Six.
DOJ-OGR-00017227.jpg
This document is page 206 of a court transcript (Document 767, filed 08/10/22) containing jury instructions for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details 'Instruction No. 27' and 'Instruction No. 28' regarding Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18. The text outlines the burden of proof for the government to establish that Maxwell knowingly trafficked a specific victim named Carolyn for commercial sex acts while knowing she was a minor.
DOJ-OGR-00017226.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) containing Jury Instructions No. 25 and 26. It defines the legal elements for Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18 (18 U.S.C. § 1591). The instructions specify that the government must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt and explicitly state that this count relates solely to an individual named Carolyn during the period of 2001 to 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00017225.jpg
This document is page 204 of a court transcript (Document 767, filed 08/10/22) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instructions 22, 23, and the start of 24. The text outlines the legal standards for Count Four (transportation of a minor), specifically requiring the government to prove Ms. Maxwell knew 'Jane' was under 17, and clarifying that the failure to actually accomplish the intended illegal sexual activity is not a defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017223.jpg
This document is a page from a legal proceeding, specifically a judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the first element of Count Four, which accuses the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, of knowingly transporting a minor named Jane in interstate commerce between 1994 and 1997 for illegal sexual activity. The charge clarifies that the prosecution must prove Ms. Maxwell was actively involved in arranging the travel, but not necessarily that she physically transported Jane herself.
DOJ-OGR-00017222.jpg
This document is page 201 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Jury Instructions No. 18 and 19 regarding Count Four, which charges the defendant with the transportation of an individual under the age of 17 to engage in illegal sexual activity under Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2423(a). The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove, including the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age and intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00017221.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically jury instructions regarding a charge of sexual abuse. It defines sexual abuse in the third degree under New York Penal Law Section 130.55, explaining the legal definitions of "sexual contact" and lack of consent, particularly noting that individuals under 17 are legally incapable of consent. The alleged acts took place between approximately 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00017219.jpg
This document is page 198 of a court transcript (Document 767, filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains the judge's instructions (Charge) to the jury regarding legal definitions of 'knowingly' and 'intentionally,' as well as specific instructions (No. 16 and 17) regarding Count Two: Enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text defines interstate commerce and outlines the government's burden of proof regarding Maxwell's intent to cause an individual to engage in criminal sexual activity under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00017218.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines instruction No. 15 regarding Count Two, specifically the charge of enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text defines the legal elements the government must prove, including interstate travel and intent, specifically relating to a victim referred to as 'Jane' during the period of 1994 to 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00017217.jpg
This page contains a transcript of jury instructions from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge explains the legal distinction between conspiracy charges and substantive charges. The text specifically details Instruction No. 13 regarding Count Two, citing Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, which defines the federal crime of enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity involving interstate travel.
DOJ-OGR-00017215.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, details several counts from an indictment against defendant Ms. Maxwell. The charges include conspiracy to transport minors and sex trafficking, with alleged crimes occurring between 1994 and 2004 involving multiple victims, specifically naming Jane and Carolyn in separate counts. The document concludes with an instruction, likely for a jury, to consider each of the six counts individually and return a separate verdict for each.
DOJ-OGR-00017210.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It contains Jury Instruction No. 5, explicitly instructing the jury to avoid improper considerations such as discrimination or bias (conscious or unconscious) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's identity or economic status when reaching a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00017209.jpg
This document is a page from a judge's charge to the jury in a criminal case, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury not to be swayed by lawyers' objections or the judge's own rulings and comments, emphasizing that these are matters of legal procedure. The judge stresses that the jury's own recollection of the facts is what governs their decision-making and that statements from counsel are not evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017202.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Rebuttal by Ms. Comey) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor argues against the defense's conspiracy theory by highlighting the consistency of eight witnesses (including Juan Alessi and accusers like Annie and Carolyn) and pointing out the chronological impossibility of a conspiracy formed in 2019, given that incriminating statements were made to the FBI and in depositions in 2006 and 2009. The prosecutor references corroborating evidence such as flight records, FedEx records, and message pads.
DOJ-OGR-00017197.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey, arguing that witness testimony against Ghislaine Maxwell predating 2019 could not be a 'frame-job' because Jeffrey Epstein was still alive and considered the primary target ('big fish') at that time. The page argues that accusations made years prior invalidate the defense theory of a fabricated narrative against Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017191.jpg
This document is a page from the rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Comey contrasts the memories of victims Jane and Carolyn, whose frequent abuse causes details to blur, with Annie, whose limited interactions remain vivid. She argues that despite peripheral details fading, the core traumatic events—specifically Maxwell's presence during abuse—are strongly remembered.
DOJ-OGR-00014008.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The discussion centers on whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias, specifically in relation to her statement "it fell into my lap." The judge cites the Second Circuit case *United States v. Harvey* to clarify the applicable law on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00014000.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca are discussing procedural matters with the Judge regarding the admission of prior inconsistent statements for a witness named 'Carolyn' (who is present from out of state) and future discussions regarding witnesses 'Jane' and 'Annie'. The attorneys reference specific transcript lines (1610 and 1611) and an FBI 302 report.
DOJ-OGR-00013996.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial break. The judge instructs the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell) to confer and narrow their disagreements regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements. The judge states an intention to review these statements during the lunch break to help resolve the issues later that day.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity