SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014607.jpg
This document is page 207 of a court transcript (Jury Charge) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details 'Instruction No. 29' regarding 'Count Six: Sex trafficking of an individual under the age of 18.' The judge instructs the jury that the consent or willingness of the victim, identified specifically as 'Carolyn,' is not a valid defense if she was under 18. The text also outlines the 'Fourth element' of the charge, defining 'interstate commerce' and the government's burden of proof regarding Maxwell's conduct affecting it.
DOJ-OGR-00014605.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing jury instructions for Count Six, a charge of sex trafficking of a minor. It cites the relevant law, Title 18, Section 1591 of the U.S. Code, and lists the four elements the government must prove for a conviction. The document specifies that this charge pertains to actions involving a person named Carolyn between 2001 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00014604.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 10, 2022, is a page from jury instructions in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's burden of proof for several counts, including proving that Ms. Maxwell knew an individual named Jane was under 17 and that a significant purpose of transporting her across state lines was for illegal sexual activity. The document clarifies that the intended illegal act did not need to be accomplished for the defendant to be found guilty, as long as the intent was present at the time of transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00014603.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions for 'Count Four' in the case against Ms. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The instruction explains that the government must prove Ms. Maxwell knowingly transported a minor named 'Jane' across state lines with the intent for her to engage in illegal sexual activity violating New York Penal Law. The document clarifies that this illegal intent did not need to be Ms. Maxwell's sole purpose for the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00014602.jpg
This page contains jury instructions (Instruction No. 20) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding Count Four of the indictment. The judge explains the legal definition of 'transportation of an individual under the age of 17 to engage in illegal sexual activity,' specifically relating to a victim identified as 'Jane' during the period of 1994 to 1997. The text clarifies that the government must prove Maxwell knowingly facilitated this travel, such as by purchasing tickets, even if she did not personally transport the victim across state lines.
DOJ-OGR-00014601.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a jury instruction from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It outlines the legal elements the government must prove to find the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty of Count Four: knowingly transporting a minor named Jane across state lines for illegal sexual activity, as defined by Title 18 of the United States Code and prosecutable under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00014600.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing jury instructions regarding Count Two of the indictment. The judge instructs the jury on New York Penal Law Section 130.55 (sexual abuse in the third degree) relevant to acts alleged between 1994 and 1997. The text defines 'sexual contact' and explicitly states that individuals under the age of 17 are legally incapable of consenting to such contact.
DOJ-OGR-00014598.jpg
This document is page 198 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 Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically defining legal concepts such as 'acting knowingly,' 'interstate commerce,' and 'intent' in the context of Count Two: Enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text outlines the government's burden of proof regarding Maxwell's intent for individuals to engage in criminal sexual activity under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00014596.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, specifically the judge's charge to the jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge explains the difference between conspiracy and substantive crimes and begins instructing the jury on Count Two, which involves enticement to engage in illegal sexual activity. The judge quotes the relevant federal statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, as part of the instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00014594.jpg
This document is page 194 of a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) containing jury instructions for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details Counts Three through Six of the indictment, specifying charges of conspiracy, transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity, and sex trafficking. Specific victims 'Jane' (1994-1997) and 'Carolyn' (2001-2004) are named in relation to specific counts.
DOJ-OGR-00014593.jpg
This document is page 193 of a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) containing jury instructions for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge instructs the jury on the presumption of innocence and summarizes the first two counts of the indictment: Count One regarding conspiracy to entice minors (1994-2004) and Count Two regarding the enticement of a specific individual named 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00014592.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It provides the jury with the legal definition of 'reasonable doubt,' instructing them on the standards for conviction and acquittal. The document also clarifies that an indictment is merely a formal accusation and should not be considered as evidence of guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00014591.jpg
This document is a portion of a legal instruction, likely for a jury, from the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It clarifies that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is presumed innocent and does not bear the burden of proving her innocence; instead, the government must prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each charge. The document also provides a detailed definition of 'reasonable doubt,' emphasizing it must be based on reason and evidence, not speculation or sympathy.
DOJ-OGR-00014590.jpg
This document is a page from a set of jury instructions for the criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It directs the jury on core legal principles, emphasizing that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, is entitled to a fair trial, is presumed innocent, and that the government bears the entire burden of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00014589.jpg
This document is page 189 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, containing jury instructions (Instruction No. 5: Improper considerations) for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text instructs the jury to base their verdict solely on evidence and explicitly prohibits discrimination or bias based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or economic circumstances regarding Ms. Maxwell or any witnesses. It also defines and warns against the influence of unconscious bias and public opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00014588.jpg
This document is a page from a jury charge in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A judge is instructing the jury on how to properly interpret courtroom proceedings, specifically warning them not to draw inferences from lawyers' objections, the judge's rulings, or sidebar discussions. The judge emphasizes that the jury's own recollection of the facts is what governs their decision-making and that they are the sole determiners of fact.
DOJ-OGR-00014587.jpg
This document is page 187 of a court transcript (Document 767) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the judge's charge to the jury, specifically instructing them not to research the case externally or communicate about it outside the jury room. It also details Instruction No. 4, explaining that statements made by attorneys are arguments, not evidence, and that the jury's own recollection of the evidence must control their decision.
DOJ-OGR-00014586.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, containing a judge's instructions to a jury. The judge clarifies that only witness answers and admitted exhibits constitute evidence, not lawyers' questions or the judge's own rulings. The document also contains "Instruction No. 3," which strictly prohibits jurors from communicating about the case with anyone using any electronic devices or social media platforms during their deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00014585.jpg
This document is a jury charge from a legal proceeding, specifically Instruction No. 2 regarding the role of the jury. The judge instructs the jury that they are the exclusive judges of the facts and must base their verdict solely on the evidence presented, while also being bound to follow the law exactly as the judge provides it. The document clarifies that statements, arguments, and questions from lawyers do not constitute evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00014584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the final sentences of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, urging the jury to find the defendant guilty of sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions (The Charge), specifically starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014582.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Comey argues that the four witnesses against Maxwell were motivated by a desire for justice, not money, pointing out that they had already received 'million-dollar payouts' and would not have endured a traumatic trial and cross-examination if they were lying. The core of the argument is that the witnesses' testimony was truthful and not part of a conspiracy to frame the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00014580.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 that the testimonies of victims Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie are credible specifically because they did not exaggerate Maxwell's involvement (e.g., admitting she wasn't always in the room or only touched them in specific ways), contrasting this with 'better lies' they could have told if fabricating the story. The text details specific sexual acts and interactions attributed to Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00014579.jpg
This document is a transcript of a rebuttal argument by Ms. Comey in a criminal trial. The speaker argues that the witnesses—Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie—have no financial motive to lie in their testimony against the defendant, Maxwell, as their civil cases are settled and they have already received compensation. The speaker specifically addresses and dismisses a defense claim regarding a conversation between Jane's lawyer and a prosecutor, asserting it does not constitute evidence of a financial incentive for testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00014578.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal rebuttal by Ms. Comey, dated August 10, 2022. She argues for the credibility of several witnesses, including Juan Alessi and the ex-boyfriends (Matt, Dave, Shawn) of female accusers, stating they have no motive to lie. Comey highlights that Alessi's testimony is corroborated by external evidence, such as flight records confirming that minors named Jane and Virginia flew on Jeffrey Epstein's planes.
DOJ-OGR-00014577.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring a rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refutes the defense's suggestion (attributed to Ms. Menninger) that the FBI manipulated witnesses or asked leading questions, citing the ethical testimony of Special Agent Young. She argues that the victims (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) did not misremember the defendant's role in their abuse and that the defense's argument relies on the jury believing all witnesses are liars.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity