SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00011682.jpg
This document is page 21 (transcript page 17) of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains preliminary instructions from the judge to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof resting solely on the government, and the defendant's right not to present evidence (specifically using female pronouns 'she' and 'her'). The judge also outlines their own role in deciding rules of law compared to the jury's role as fact-finders.
DOJ-OGR-00011681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely a judge's instructions to a jury. It outlines the sequence of a criminal trial, clarifying that only testimony from witnesses and exhibits constitute evidence, not the lawyers' opening or closing statements. The text emphasizes the defendant's presumption of innocence, stating she is not required to offer proof, and concludes by noting that jury deliberations are secret.
DOJ-OGR-00011680.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in of a jury consisting of 12 members and six alternates by a court clerk named Ms. Williams. The Judge (The Court) then begins providing preliminary instructions regarding the trial proceedings, specifically explaining the process of opening statements by the government and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00011679.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a logistical delay in open court involving defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge regarding three jurors who are missing or delayed at the security line. The Judge discusses moving jurors between the first and fifth floors to manage the situation.
DOJ-OGR-00011678.jpg
This is page 13 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court discusses procedural logistics for questioning jurors using a handheld mic and then moves to a sidebar conference to discuss a sealed issue regarding a witness testifying under a pseudonym. The transcript notes that pages 14 through 17 are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00011677.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It records a procedural discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim, Prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge regarding the order of 'alternating strikes' during jury selection. The Judge agrees to allow the defense to start the process because they have ten strikes available.
DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the Defense (Ms. Sternheim), and the Judge regarding the placement of screens in the courtroom to ensure evidence shown to a witness is not visible to the public in the gallery. The prosecution expresses concern about visibility for their paralegal and the public, which the Defense addresses by clarifying seating arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.
DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011671.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge outlines the protocol for showing electronic evidence to a witness who is testifying under a pseudonym, expressing concern that the material could inadvertently reveal the witness's identity to the gallery. The judge agrees to the proposed method of using limited screens, provided the government is kept fully aware and paper copies are available as a backup.
DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.
DOJ-OGR-00011668.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on August 10, 2022. An unnamed speaker, likely the judge, details the logistical plan for the final phase of jury selection, explaining how 58 remaining jurors will be questioned for bias via a live feed and how counsel will then exercise peremptory strikes on a smaller pool of 40 jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00011666.jpg
This document is the cover page for the court transcript of the jury trial in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on November 29, 2021. The trial took place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present.
DOJ-OGR-00011664.jpg
This is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings conclude with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is a disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in a criminal case. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, requests and receives permission from the government and court to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two other witnesses, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The court also sets a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the government to provide its order-of-witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00011661.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion during a final pretrial conference. The judge inquires about the exclusion of witnesses, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, clarifies that victims have a right to be present after testifying but other witnesses will be excluded. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, then raises a related issue about the admissibility of accusers' prior inconsistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011660.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, outlining the logistics for a jury selection process scheduled for the following Monday. An unidentified speaker, likely the judge, explains that jurors will be assembled in two separate courtrooms and addressed via video feed. The speaker will ask two specific questions to determine if any juror has been exposed to information about the case or feels they cannot be impartial, before proceeding with the selection of the jury pool.
DOJ-OGR-00011659.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that under New Mexico law, the sexual activity in question was not illegal because it lacked force or coercion, and requests that jury instructions reflect this distinction. The Court agrees to consider how best to clarify this for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Mr. Everdell), and the Judge regarding jury instructions for a Mann Act conspiracy count. The specific issue involves whether sexual conduct was illegal under New Mexico law versus New York law, and the age of consent regarding a specific witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011657.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Mr. Rohrbach and the presiding judge. The conversation centers on the legal definition of 'illegal sexual activity' within an indictment, specifically whether events in New Mexico and the intent for activity in New York satisfy the requirements of the Mann Act for conspiracy charges against 'minor Victim 2'. The judge expresses concern about potential jury confusion over the complex legal points being argued.
DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between the government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge. The discussion centers on whether the potential illegality of sexual conduct in New Mexico can be used as evidence for an enticement charge under New York law. The judge expresses skepticism about the government's approach, pointing out that the charges were not filed under New Mexico law and cautioning against confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the government's proposed jury instructions are confusing and contrasts them with the defense's position. The argument centers on jurisdiction and the age of consent, specifically regarding 'Accuser 2' and acts committed in New Mexico that were allegedly legal under New Mexico law at the time, versus how they are treated under New York conspiracy law.
DOJ-OGR-00011650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The discussion centers on a legal point about whether a defendant can be convicted based 'solely' on the testimony of 'witness 3' concerning sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The judge seeks to clarify the precise legal standard and the government's stance on the evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity