SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017775.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a procedural discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Sternheim, Menninger). The conversation focuses on the next witness, identified as Matt, and addresses how potential evidentiary issues, such as the introduction of prior consistent statements, will be handled. An attorney also requests permission to ask a leading question under Rule 611(c).
DOJ-OGR-00017774.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar or legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger regarding the specific wording of a cross-examination question for a witness identified as 'Jane.' The discussion focuses on whether the witness believed her testimony would aid her in civil litigation or the 'victims' comp fund.'
DOJ-OGR-00017772.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (likely a criminal trial) where attorneys and the judge are discussing the phrasing of a question regarding a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on differentiating between Jane's understanding at the time she began cooperating with the government versus her current testimony, specifically concerning her financial stake and resolved civil matters.
DOJ-OGR-00017771.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The central topic is a legal argument concerning the waiver of attorney-client privilege, specifically whether a client's disclosure to the government constitutes a waiver. The judge directs the attorneys to submit a formal brief on the waiver issue.
DOJ-OGR-00017770.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a sidebar or legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge regarding the admissibility of a line of questioning for a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on whether questions about what Jane was told regarding her testimony's impact on a civil case are proper for impeaching the credibility of the prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00017769.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a portion of the privilege was waived, while another, Ms. Moe, states she is unprepared to respond. The judge ultimately rules that the issue is too complex to be decided on the spot and requires the parties to submit formal legal briefs on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017768.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a sidebar or legal argument regarding witness 'Jane'. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the witness may be motivated to testify in the criminal trial to increase a financial payout in a separate civil case. The Judge ('The Court') expresses concern that questioning the witness about communications with her lawyer regarding this strategy would violate attorney-client privilege and rules to limit the scope of questioning on 401/403 grounds.
DOJ-OGR-00017767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the Judge, Ms. Moe (Defense), and Ms. Menninger (Government) regarding the scope of cross-examination for a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask if Jane is aware that her attorney told the government about her expectations for financial compensation in civil litigation, and whether such questions violate attorney-client privilege or are relevant to her credibility and bias.
DOJ-OGR-00017766.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane.' Ms. Menninger attempts to question Jane about her knowledge of statements her lawyer made to the government regarding how her testimony might impact civil litigation. Ms. Moe (Jane's counsel) objects, arguing that this line of questioning is an attempt to bypass attorney-client privilege and does not constitute valid impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00017765.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask Jane if she believes her testimony in the criminal trial will assist her in a separate civil litigation recovery, and involves arguments regarding attorney-client privilege waivers when information is disclosed to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00017764.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The discussion centers on whether Ms. Menninger can question a witness, Jane, about her potential expectation of receiving a higher financial payout in a related civil case as a result of her testimony in the current criminal proceeding. The attorneys and the court explore the relevance of this line of questioning, touching upon privileged communications and the timeline of a victims' compensation fund.
DOJ-OGR-00017762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues that attorney-client privilege was waived because a communication was shared with the government. In response, attorney Ms. Moe suggests questioning the witness about her motives and potential bias related to a civil case, as a way to proceed without directly challenging the privileged communication.
DOJ-OGR-00017761.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, requests permission from the judge to question a witness about communications she may have had with her own attorney regarding cooperation with the government and testifying at the trial. The judge clarifies the precise wording of the question to be posed to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017760.jpg
This document is page 151 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between Ms. Menninger and the Court regarding a proffer and a 40-minute timeline, immediately followed by a luncheon recess. The header indicates the proceedings involved the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.
DOJ-OGR-00017758.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a settlement agreement. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that the document is relevant to show the amount of money a witness named Jane received, while the opposing counsel and the Court discuss whether the document's complex legal language would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The Court compares the document's complexity to other legal agreements, like cooperation agreements, that are regularly shown to juries.
DOJ-OGR-00017757.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of 'Exhibit J-40'. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, moves to admit the document, which concerns a prior civil settlement involving the witness, Jane, under seal. Opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, objects on legal grounds, arguing the information is already on record. The judge postpones the discussion until after a lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00017756.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a claim Jane made against Ms. Maxwell via a 'claims program,' which resulted in an initial offer of $5 million. The witness confirms receiving the offer and a subsequent wire transfer, but suggests the amount wired was not the full $5 million.
DOJ-OGR-00017755.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane' regarding a specific claim form (Exhibit J-18). The questioning focuses on whether Jane participated in prosecution against Epstein, her confirmation of filing litigation against Epstein or his Estate (Question 11), and begins to address whether she was trafficked (Question 12). Jane admits to signing the form but notes she 'didn't write this.'
DOJ-OGR-00017754.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on her participation in the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, including the signing and submission of a claim form with her lawyer's help. The questioner also probes her knowledge of a civil complaint against Ghislaine and whether her lawyer sent Ghislaine a letter demanding money, which the witness denies knowing about.
DOJ-OGR-00017753.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's civil lawsuits filed in January 2020 against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's estate with the assistance of attorney Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00017752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on the financial support she provided to her mother, who lived with her, and a conversation she had with her attorney, Mr. Glassman, about cooperating in a criminal case after hiring him in September 2019. An objection by Ms. Moe to a question about this conversation was sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017750.jpg
This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Jane, filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning establishes that Jane was 17 in April 1998 and participated in a Miss Teen pageant associated with Mr. Trump in the mid-1990s. The questioner also asks about an alleged $2,000 payment from Epstein for a dress, which Jane states she does not recall.
DOJ-OGR-00017748.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness identified as 'Jane.' The questioning focuses on establishing Jane's travel history and age during specific periods, noting she was 15 in April 1996 when she attended a vocal competition in Italy. The witness frequently states she does not remember specific details due to the passage of time and her age at the time of the events.
DOJ-OGR-00017747.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on a trip she took to Europe with her family when she was possibly 15 years old. The attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, briefly discuss an exhibit, J-6, which is being used to refresh the witness's memory about past flights.
DOJ-OGR-00017746.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal cross-examination dated August 10, 2022, involving a witness identified as Jane. Jane discusses her knowledge of the 'Epstein case' and clarifies that she hired a lawyer due to ongoing harassment, including calls to her, her husband, her work, and her friends, rather than solely based on information from tabloids. She also mentions having traveled frequently to a northern country during her teenage years.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity