SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00014752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a hearing. The judge confirms with the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, that they have reviewed and discussed the presentence report. The transcript also notes that another attorney, Mr. Everdell, will handle objections for the defense, and confirms with counsel Ms. Moe that a court order was posted online.
DOJ-OGR-00014751.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this excerpt, the judge confirms with counsels Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim that all submissions have been filed and received. The judge then specifically asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to confirm what has been done to notify crime victims under the Justice For All Act, to which Ms. Moe responds that six impacted individuals have been notified through their counsel about the sentencing and their right to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00014750.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. The Court lists various documents reviewed for sentencing, including support letters for Maxwell, a forensic psychiatric evaluation, a letter from an MDC inmate regarding Maxwell's tutoring, and numerous victim impact statements from individuals including Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Sarah Ransome. Counsel for both sides confirm the record of submissions before the court.
DOJ-OGR-00014749.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. It lists the legal counsel present for both the government (Moe, Pomerantz, Comey, Rohrbach) and the defense (Sternheim, Everdell), as well as the defendant herself. The judge acknowledges reviewing preparatory documents, including a probation report and defense memoranda, prior to the sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00008418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion involves the admissibility of evidence regarding 'non-testifying alleged victims' and 'prior statements of Ms. Maxwell' (referred to as government 8). The government attorney, Ms. Moe, mentions producing a large volume of electronically-stored discovery to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It features a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (defense) and the Court regarding hearsay rules. Menninger argues that testimony stating other accusers did *not* mention Ms. Maxwell is not hearsay (as it is an absence of a statement) and should be admissible if the government introduces evidence suggesting other victims exist without calling them to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00008416.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 17, 2021, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot introduce potentially exculpatory hearsay statements through law enforcement agents and must call the original witnesses. Defense counsel, Ms. Menninger, counters that the absence of an implicating statement is not hearsay, a point which the judge appears to challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00008415.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 17, 2021. It details a legal argument by defense attorney Ms. Menninger, who asserts that if the government introduces evidence (such as message pads) relating to individuals other than the four primary accusers, the defense should be allowed to introduce statements from those individuals claiming Ms. Maxwell was not involved. Prosecutor Ms. Moe agrees to defer the issue until trial, provided the defense does not mention it in their opening statement.
DOJ-OGR-00008414.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on December 17, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and two defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Menninger, regarding the scope of their opening statements. The defense argues that the government's indictment includes a conspiracy charge involving unnamed individuals, which makes evidence beyond the four main accusers relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00008413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defense should be precluded from introducing statements from other alleged victims unless they first formally proffer which witnesses they intend to call. The government contends this is necessary to prevent the introduction of inappropriate hearsay evidence during opening statements or cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge discusses procedural matters regarding background information for the jury and addresses 'No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues.' Attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Christian Everdell (Defense) are present, and the court suggests deferring the consent argument to the discussion of the Rule 412 motion due to overlapping issues.
DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 17, 2021, in which the judge is speaking. The judge outlines the rules for cross-examination, stating that the defense will be permitted to question law enforcement about the thoroughness of their investigation and to impeach government witnesses. The judge notes that denying these lines of questioning to the defense, represented by Ms. Maxwell, would have implications under the confrontation clause.
DOJ-OGR-00008409.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is a page from a court proceeding in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The judge is providing guidance on the admissibility of evidence, citing the 2013 case 'United States v. Borrero' as precedent. The court will permit the defense to cross-examine government witnesses about their prior statements that did not implicate Ms. Maxwell in order to impeach their credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008408.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing, dated December 17, 2021, arguing against the admissibility of a prior 2008 decision not to indict Ms. Maxwell. The speaker contends that the reasons for the 2008 decision by officials in the Southern District of Florida are not relevant to the current case, would be prejudicial, and could cause juror confusion. This is contrasted with the 'White' case, where a prior charging decision was deemed admissible because it directly related to a witness's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008407.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely a judge's ruling, dated December 17, 2021. The speaker explains why a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not being admitted as evidence, citing risks of prejudice, juror confusion, and undue delay that outweigh its relevance. The speaker also provides guidance that the government's prior charging decisions regarding Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are likely inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The Court has decided to exclude a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) involving Epstein from evidence, arguing that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses for bias or financial incentives, the NPA itself is not relevant. The ruling notes that the NPA does not provide protection in the current jurisdiction, distinguishing it from the Southern District of Florida where a witness might be protected.
DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 17, 2021, details a court's reasoning for excluding certain evidence from a trial involving Ms. Maxwell. The court argues that evidence proposed by the defense concerning the government's motives for the investigation—including a Miami Herald article and statements from Attorney General William Barr—would confuse and delay the trial, with its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value. The document suggests the defense should focus on the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial instead.
DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court transcript or motion, dated December 17, 2021. The speaker argues against a defense strategy that challenges the thoroughness of a government investigation, citing multiple legal precedents (e.g., Watson, Gray v. Ercole, United States v. Birbal) to support the principle that the government's choice of investigative techniques is generally irrelevant to the defendant's guilt. The argument distinguishes these cases from another, Bowen v. Maynard, where evidence of an alternative suspect was deemed material.
DOJ-OGR-00008400.jpg
This document is page 18 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The text contains legal arguments discussing case law precedents (*Kyles* and *Watson v. Greene*) regarding the admissibility of evidence related to the thoroughness of a law enforcement investigation and *Brady* material obligations. The text specifically analyzes a precedent involving a shooting investigation to argue about what lines of cross-examination should be permitted regarding police diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 17, 2021. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and the admissibility of evidence concerning the thoroughness of the government's investigation. The Court rules to preclude the defense from introducing affirmative evidence attacking the investigation's thoroughness unless it is probative of the defendant's guilt, citing cases such as United States v. Figueroa and Kyles v. Whitley.
DOJ-OGR-00008398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing dated December 17, 2021, outlines the legal principles guiding the court's analysis of the government's investigation into Ms. Maxwell. It references precedents from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court to establish rules regarding investigative techniques, challenges to government motives, and the admissibility of evidence related to charging decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg
This document is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. The transcript records the adjournment of the proceedings, 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 disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday with plans to reconvene the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a legal argument about witness sequestration. The judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey discuss whether victim witnesses who have already testified should be excluded from hearing other testimony, as they might be recalled for rebuttal. Ms. Comey requests to submit a letter to the court to further address the issue.
DOJ-OGR-00008349.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The speaker (the Judge) is outlining logistics for the following Monday regarding jury management. The plan involves assembling jurors in two separate courtrooms connected by video feed, asking them two specific questions regarding their exposure to media about the case and their ability to remain impartial, and subsequently exercising peremptory challenges.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity