SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00020896.jpg
This document is a transcript of a voir dire or deposition from February 28, 2023, where an attorney questions a potential juror about an inaccurate answer on their questionnaire. The juror admits to mistakenly checking 'no' when asked if a family member had ever been accused of a crime, explaining that their stepbrother had been. The juror attributes the error to being distracted, unfocused due to a recent breakup, and skimming the form too quickly, calling it an 'inadvertent mistake' and 'one of the biggest mistakes' of their life.
DOJ-OGR-00020895.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding on February 28, 2023, where an individual identified as M38TMAX1 is questioned about their answers on a questionnaire. The questioning focuses on why they answered 'no' to a question about sexual abuse involving a family member, despite a past incident. The individual explains they did not consider the perpetrator to be family and that they were very distracted by a chaotic environment at the courthouse when completing the form.
DOJ-OGR-00020892.jpg
This document is a transcript page (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings, indicated by 'M38TMAX1') regarding 'Juror 50'. The Court grants Juror 50 'use immunity' following an assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges, protecting them from prosecution based on their testimony provided they do not commit perjury. The Court also explicitly instructs the juror not to reveal information regarding jury deliberations or thought processes during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020860.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number 22-1426 and attorney Mr. Everdell). The Judge is explaining a decision to extend jury deliberations by one hour each day due to an 'astronomical spike' in COVID-19 (Omicron variant) cases in New York City, aiming to complete the trial before jurors or participants are forced to quarantine. Mr. Everdell acknowledges the ruling and declines to argue the point at that moment.
DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00020857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) while the jury is not present. The discussion centers on a letter submitted by the defense overnight, which the judge just received. Ms. Moe argues that the letter merely repeats a legal argument about jury instructions that the defense made the previous day and which the Court had already considered and rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00020856.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 28, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It identifies the case as United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, lists the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and details the legal counsel appearing for both the prosecution and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.
DOJ-OGR-00020843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (part of an appeal filing dated Feb 28, 2023) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Ms. Menninger. They are analyzing a jury question regarding whether the defendant can be held responsible for specific flights (to New Mexico vs. New York) and discussing the legal necessity of proving transportation to a specific location versus the general intent to engage in illegal sexual activity. The text highlights the defense's argument that the indictment does not specify New Mexico exclusively.
DOJ-OGR-00020842.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 02/28/2023. It features a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger before a Judge regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of 'transportation' for illegal sexual activity. The discussion specifically focuses on a flight to New Mexico involving a victim referred to as 'Jane' and whether the intent of that specific travel leg was for sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00020841.jpg
This court transcript excerpt captures a legal discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court regarding a jury's question on 'aiding and abetting'. The conversation centers on the legal requirements for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty in relation to arranging travel to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury instruction requires the travel to have a 'significant or motivating purpose' across state lines, rather than focusing solely on who arranged the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg
This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.
DOJ-OGR-00020837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.
DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00020832.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the appeal or trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) containing jury instructions (Charge). It details the legal requirements for proving Counts Two and Four, specifically focusing on the transportation of a minor ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity. The instructions clarify that the government must prove Maxwell knew Jane was under 17 and that the failure to actually accomplish the sexual activity is not a defense if the intent was present during transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020831.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Charge) in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details Instruction No. 21 regarding Count Four, which charges Maxwell with transporting an individual under 17 ('Jane') across state lines for illegal sexual activity in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The judge instructs the jury that the government must prove Maxwell's intent and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, though the illegal activity need not be the sole purpose of the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020826.jpg
This document is a page from court transcripts (Jury Instruction No. 20) regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the legal elements for 'Count Four,' specifically the charge of transporting an individual ('Jane') under the age of 17 in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity between 1994 and 1997. The instruction clarifies that Maxwell did not need to physically transport the victim herself, but that making arrangements, such as purchasing tickets, satisfies the legal requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00020825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (specifically jury instructions) filed on February 28, 2023, as part of Case 22-1426 (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal). It details Instruction No. 18 and 19 regarding 'Count Four,' which charges transportation of a minor (under 17) in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity. The text outlines the legal elements the government must prove under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2423(a), specifically noting the requirement to prove Ms. Maxwell laid intent for the individual to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00020824.jpg
This legal document, from Case 22-1426, provides jury instructions or a legal explanation regarding a charge of sexual abuse in the third degree under New York State Penal Law Section 130.55. It defines key legal terms, such as "sexual contact," and clarifies that under New York law, a person under 17 years old is legally incapable of consent. The document specifies that the alleged acts related to this charge occurred between approximately 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00019061.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief procedural exchange between the judge (THE COURT) and Ms. Comey about bringing the jury and a witness, identified as Rodgers, into the courtroom. After Ms. Comey agrees to the procedure, the judge gives the order to proceed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity