SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00008348.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, detailing a legal discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning sexual conduct in New Mexico to a federal conspiracy charge under the Mann Act, particularly in relation to New York's age of consent laws. The judge acknowledges the complexity and indicates the need for a legally correct jury charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008346.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the court and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the definition of 'illegal sexual activity' in an indictment involving Mr. Epstein. The conversation centers on whether events in New Mexico constitute a crime under the Mann Act and how they relate to proving intent for illegal activity in New York, particularly concerning conspiracy charges against 'minor Victim 2'.
DOJ-OGR-00008345.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, details a discussion between attorney Mr. Rohrbach and the judge regarding the legal framework of the case. They clarify that the charges are based on New York statutes, not New Mexico law, despite alleged sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico. The judge reiterates a prior instruction, explaining that because the witness was over the age of consent in New Mexico at the time, the conduct there was not illegal under local law, a point relevant for jury instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00008344.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge regarding jury instructions for an enticement charge. The core issue is whether the legality of sexual activity under New Mexico law is relevant or potentially prejudicial for a charge based on violating New York law, with the judge expressing concern about confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008343.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 10, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony regarding Accuser 2 and Accuser 3 might lead the jury to convict Maxwell on an improper basis because their allegations do not relate to New York law violations. The Court acknowledges the need to clarify to the jury that while evidence may be relevant to enticement charges, sexual activity in New Mexico cannot be considered as the illegal conduct charged in the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008341.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. The Judge ('The Court') is discussing jury instructions regarding a specific witness involved in sexual conduct in New Mexico. The Judge notes that while the witness was above the age of consent in New Mexico, the government is using the evidence to prove enticement for illegal acts in New York, and the jury instructions must accurately reflect this legal distinction without favoring the government's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00008340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a legal discussion between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concerning the precise wording of jury instructions. They specifically debate whether the defendant, Mr. Epstein, could be convicted 'solely' based on a witness's testimony, with both agreeing that such an instruction would be an incorrect statement of law and potentially a reversible error.
DOJ-OGR-00008339.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are clarifying a point of law regarding the testimony of 'witness 3' about sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The core of the conversation is whether the defendant can be convicted 'solely' on this testimony or if it must be considered in combination with other evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008337.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021, detailing a conversation between the judge and attorneys for the defense and government. The discussion focuses on whether the defense will call expert witnesses (LaPorte and Naso), with a defense attorney stating it's unlikely and was only considered as a precaution regarding 'Accuser No. 2'. A government attorney expresses concern about the potential for the defense to decide to call these experts in the middle of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008336.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on December 10, 2021. It records a procedural argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding the sufficiency of the government's disclosures (Rule 16 and 3500 materials) concerning their expert witness, Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient regarding the expert's opinions, they may face issues later in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. In the transcript, the judge discusses the disclosure of expert witness opinions with defense counsel, Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach. The judge agrees to a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the defense to provide these opinions and reminds them of their obligation under Rule 16 to provide a clear notice of the opinions, stating that it is not a "scavenger hunt."
DOJ-OGR-00008334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of expert testimony provided by a Mr. Flatley concerning digital forensics and metadata. The judge instructs the parties on how to handle differing expert opinions on forensic principles.
DOJ-OGR-00008333.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before the court about the nature of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The central issue is whether Mr. Flatley will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding his methods for user data extraction, and whether sufficient notice was provided to the opposing side.
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008329.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021. The judge and attorneys discuss procedural matters for an upcoming trial, agreeing to resolve a hearsay/relevance issue during the trial itself. The court then raises the issue of whether individuals disclosed by the defense, specifically Kelso and Lopez, should be considered fact witnesses rather than expert witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Mr. Pagliuca), and the Judge regarding the physical inspection of evidence that occurred on November 1st. The Judge instructs the government not to mention specific evidence with uncertain admissibility in their opening statement and transitions the proceedings to discuss the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008327.jpg
This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021, documents a pretrial discussion. The judge rules on the process for determining the admissibility of testimony and orders the government to make a document exhibit available for defense inspection, after which the attorneys confirm the inspection already occurred on November 1st and that the original exhibit will be present at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008326.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion about a motion to preclude Government Exhibit 52. The judge denies the motion to preclude before trial, opting to hear witness testimony first. The conversation, primarily between the judge and attorney Ms. Moe, clarifies that a witness will authenticate the exhibit by testifying they saw a very similar, but not necessarily identical, book, without knowing how the specific exhibit came into government possession.
DOJ-OGR-00008325.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Dec 10, 2021) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The Judge instructs the attorney to prioritize using physical binders for cross-examination exhibits rather than relying solely on digital screens, though exceptions are allowed. The document is stamped with a Department of Justice identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning the practical methods for presenting documentary evidence during a trial. The judge suggests preparing a binder of potential exhibits, while the attorney expresses concern, leading to a discussion about the role of a paralegal in displaying documents on a monitor during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008321.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated December 10, 2021. The dialogue is between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and the Court regarding the logistics of presenting evidence; specifically, they agree that while electronic display is standard, sensitive documents containing identifying information of victims should be provided to jurors in paper binders to prevent them from being seen on public courtroom screens.
DOJ-OGR-00008320.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a pre-trial hearing. The judge notes that the government failed to include a financial institution on a list of entities to be mentioned at trial. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, then raises a procedural issue, proposing that any impeachment or refreshing of a witness's recollection be handled electronically.
DOJ-OGR-00008318.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, captures a discussion where attorney Ms. Moe informs the court of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Moe explains that prospective Juror No. 93 is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness is an executive director, and that this issue has also been flagged for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008317.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey regarding pre-trial motions. The judge rules that an attorney cannot be called as a witness without prior briefing, and the parties discuss the timing and content of jury instructions for witnesses who will be testifying under pseudonyms.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity