SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014730.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which the judge addresses the jury. The judge confirms the jury's requested deliberation schedule to end at 5 p.m. and resume the next morning, while also outlining future scheduling. The judge strongly reminds the jury of strict COVID-19 protocols, including mandatory KN95/N95 masking and social distancing, due to the omicron variant.
DOJ-OGR-00014729.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A judge instructs the involved parties, including Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, that jury deliberations will continue daily until a verdict is reached and asks them to remain available. The judge also provides a protocol for addressing scheduling hardships through a Ms. Williams.
DOJ-OGR-00014727.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A judge explains the decision to modify the jury deliberation schedule due to a significant spike in COVID-19 (omicron variant) cases in New York City, aiming to prevent a mistrial. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the change, arguing that the court should honor its initial commitment to the jury regarding time off for the weekend and New Year's.
DOJ-OGR-00014726.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, concerning jury deliberation scheduling. The judge relays a note from the jury requesting to end at 5:00 p.m. and, citing the omicron variant, instructs that deliberations will proceed every day, including weekends if necessary, until a verdict is reached. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe briefly comment, deferring to the court's decision.
DOJ-OGR-00014725.jpg
This document is a single page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The page records an unidentified speaker concluding a session by stating, "I'll bring you back in to discuss that. Thank you," followed by a note indicating a recess and that the proceedings are continued on the next page. The transcript was prepared by Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell argues that conduct and travel occurring solely in New Mexico cannot legally form the basis for a conviction of his client, Ms. Maxwell, under New York law, and he requests a supplemental jury instruction to this effect. The judge rejects the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that Mr. Everdell failed to seek to exclude the related testimony earlier.
DOJ-OGR-00014722.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues his interpretation of a recent note from the jury, contending that they are confused about whether they can convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, on Count Four based solely on events in New Mexico and are unclear on the jury instructions. The Court acknowledges his position but expresses skepticism about the assumptions being made.
DOJ-OGR-00014721.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A judge explains the decision to extend daily jury deliberations by one hour due to a significant spike in COVID-19 cases from the omicron variant in New York City. The judge's concern is that jurors or trial participants might need to quarantine, which would risk the completion of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An attorney argues that the existing instructions are sufficient and that sending new, confusing ones would be a mistake. The judge ('THE COURT') then critiques the defense's newly proposed instruction, stating it addresses a count the jury didn't ask about and contains a legally incorrect paragraph concerning sexual activity involving a person named 'Jane' in states other than New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014718.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the judge addresses a letter from the defense. Ms. Moe, likely a prosecutor, points out that the letter rehashes an argument the Court already rejected the previous day. The judge affirms this, stating that the legal instructions given to the jury were correct and remain so, thereby dismissing the defense's implicit challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00014717.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court transcript from the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 CR 330), dated December 28, 2021. It lists Judge Alison J. Nathan as presiding, along with the appearances of the prosecution team (led by US Attorney Damian Williams) and the defense team (including attorneys from Haddon Morgan and Foreman and Cohen & Gresser). Also noted as present are representatives from the FBI and NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00014715.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters to discuss. The court is then formally adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00014714.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing instructions from "THE COURT" to the jury. The Court dismisses the jury for the day, advises them to continue taking health precautions, and outlines the schedule for resuming deliberations the following day, suggesting they plan to deliberate until at least 6 p.m. The Court also designates Ms. Williams as a contact for any hardships regarding the deliberation schedule, emphasizing that the jury should take all the time they need.
DOJ-OGR-00014713.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge regarding the wording of jury instructions about the deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the proposed language might pressure the jury, but the Court overrules her objection, emphasizing its discretion and the need for consistent, neutral language.
DOJ-OGR-00014712.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and attorneys about the schedule for jury deliberations. The judge sets a default end time of 6 p.m., with an exception for jurors who report a hardship to a Ms. Williams. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to the judge's phrasing for the jury instructions, fearing it could pressure the jury, but the judge overrules the objection, citing prior use of the same language without issue.
DOJ-OGR-00014711.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between legal counsel and the judge over the jury's deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger objects to extending the jury's hours, suggesting it could be perceived as pressure to rush, while Ms. Moe argues it is merely procedural scheduling. The judge resolves the issue by deciding to instruct the jury to be available to deliberate until 6 p.m. daily, starting the next day, if they have not yet reached a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00014710.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell are discussing a response to a note received from the jury. The Judge decides to refer the jury back to Instruction Number 21 on page 28. Additionally, the parties discuss extending the schedule for jury deliberations for the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two lawyers (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) about a jury's confusion. The jury appears to be mistaking New Mexico law for New York law regarding Count Four. Despite Mr. Everdell's concerns about ongoing confusion, the judge decides to simply refer the jury back to the original charge, which Ms. Moe argues clearly specifies a New York statute.
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding jury confusion over 'Count Four'. The jury is questioning the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge that must be considered under New York law, and the counsel debate whether simply referring the jury to the existing instructions is sufficient to resolve the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell). The discussion focuses on formulating a response to a jury's question regarding 'Count Four', specifically concerning the required evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight to secure a conviction. The judge finds the jury's question ambiguous and directs them to the full jury instructions, while the counsel argues for a more specific clarification.
DOJ-OGR-00014706.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe regarding the interpretation of a jury note. The discussion focuses heavily on the grammatical placement of a comma in a question about liability for 'transportation of the return flight' versus a 'flight to New Mexico.'
DOJ-OGR-00014705.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and Ms. Menninger. Ms. Menninger argues that for a conviction on a specific count, the jury does not need to find that a flight was specifically to New Mexico, as the indictment only requires that the flight's purpose was to engage in illegal sexual activity, regardless of the destination. The judge questions this position for clarity and ultimately agrees with her interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00014704.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. Menninger. They are discussing the legal standard required for a jury to find a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane' to New Mexico. The central issue is whether the flight must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' related to illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014702.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal discussion regarding jury deliberations, specifically concerning whether Ghislaine Maxwell arranged flights to or from New Mexico for a person named 'Jane' for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. Attorney Ms. Moe argues that a note from the jury is confusing and that the parties are guessing at the jury's hypothetical questions regarding Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity