SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00018620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Meder. During the testimony, a prosecutor, Ms. Comey, introduces a photograph (Government Exhibit 320) which the witness identifies as depicting Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, stating it came from a CD reviewed during the "Epstein and Maxwell investigation." The court admits the photograph into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018619.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Meder by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admission of evidence. Specifically, the witness identifies Government Exhibit 307 as a photograph of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell retrieved from an investigation CD logged as '1B26'.
DOJ-OGR-00018615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge sustains an objection to Exhibit 309 and grants a request by Ms. Moe for a sealed sidebar discussion regarding the cross-examination of an individual named Brian due to privacy concerns. Consequently, pages 1440 to 1443 of the transcript are noted as sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the government (Mr. Rohrbach) and an opposing party (Ms. Menninger). Mr. Rohrbach confirms that the government will not question a witness, Mr. Flatley, about 'CDs' during direct examination, which resolves a procedural issue and satisfies the court and Ms. Menninger. The judge remarks that prior preparation for this line of questioning is now moot but may be saved for future use.
DOJ-OGR-00018612.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The primary issue is the scope of testimony for an upcoming witness, Mr. Flatley, concerning whether a file's 'created date' is the same as its 'modified date' on a CD, and whether this constitutes factual testimony or requires an expert opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00018611.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, where an attorney addresses the judge. The attorney discusses the permissible scope of testimony for a witness, Mr. Flatley, expressing concern that a November 26 disclosure suggests expert opinion on metadata verification, while indicating acceptance if the testimony is confined to factual information from an earlier September disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00018610.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger discuss the timeline for investigating a potential violation of a sequestration order, deciding not to expedite the matter due to a person named Brian's travel plans. Ms. Menninger also raises a new issue, highlighting a discrepancy between a recent letter from the government and information she received in a prior conferral.
DOJ-OGR-00018609.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and two counsels, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the scheduling and scope of testimony for a witness named Brian, who has a flight planned for the next day. The court directs the government to first inquire about what Brian learned from another individual, Jane, before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00018607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a potential sequestration order violation has occurred. She expresses concern that a witness, Brian, was told information by another person, Jane, about a document shown during testimony. Ms. Menninger requests that the court question Brian under oath, outside the jury's presence, to determine the extent of the communication before he testifies.
DOJ-OGR-00018605.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and a lawyer, Ms. Moe. The judge expresses concern that a witness, Brian, may have been coached by another person, Jane, during a recent conversation. Ms. Moe refutes this by arguing that Brian's testimony is consistent with statements he provided to the government long before the trial, which are documented in '3500 material', thus proving his testimony was not recently influenced.
DOJ-OGR-00018604.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 discussion between the Judge and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding witness conduct, specifically whether witnesses were instructed not to confer with one another. Ms. Moe confirms it is standard practice to instruct witnesses not to speak to each other, and discloses a meeting 'last night' with a witness named Brian, who revealed he had spoken with another witness, Jane.
DOJ-OGR-00018603.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding potential witness coaching. The discussion centers on a conversation between two siblings about one's unpleasant experience testifying, prompting the judge to inquire about whether witnesses were properly instructed not to discuss their testimony with others. Ms. Moe also mentions speaking with the witness's (Jane's) attorney after her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018601.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing an argument about witness tampering. An attorney informs the judge that a witness who already testified contacted a future witness, Brian, to discuss their testimony, potentially violating a sequestration order. The attorney requests that Brian be barred from testifying, while another attorney, Ms. Moe, begins a counterargument by citing legal rules regarding witness exclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00018599.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. The trial took place on December 7, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Alison J. Nathan presiding. The document lists the appearances of the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present.
DOJ-OGR-00018598.jpg
This document is the final page of a court filing (Document 751) from criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It appears to be an index from a court transcript, listing various numbered items and concluding with a list of defendant exhibits (B, K-8, K-10) that were received into evidence. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters, P.C. and bears a Department of Justice Bates number.
DOJ-OGR-00018597.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the examination of witnesses KATE, PATRICK McHUGH, KELLY MAGUIRE, and KIMBERLY MEDER by various attorneys, listing the page numbers for each direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. The document also lists several government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018596.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript records a discussion ending an evidentiary session where an attorney argues against humiliating women with naked photographs in the courtroom. The court considers an item labeled '309' before adjourning proceedings until December 7, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between two lawyers, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the presiding judge regarding the defense's ability to cross-examine a witness about a photograph, referred to as exhibit 309. Ms. Moe states the witness, Kate, was shown the photo in a prior interview and that the defense was aware of this, countering the defense's claim that their rights were compromised.
DOJ-OGR-00018594.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a photograph after a witness has left the stand, with one attorney, Ms. Sternheim, arguing that the government's failure to introduce the photo during testimony precluded her from a relevant line of cross-examination regarding the witness and the topic of nudity.
DOJ-OGR-00018593.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a legal debate over the admissibility of a photograph. Defense counsel argues the photo is prejudicial, while Ms. Moe contends it is relevant; the judge ultimately overrules the objection. The discussion also references a witness named Kate, who testified earlier that day, and whose connection to the photograph is debated.
DOJ-OGR-00018592.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. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues against admitting a topless photograph of a female subject found in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in 2019, stating the photo dates to 2002 when the subject was of age. Menninger argues that introducing the photo creates a '403 problem' (prejudice) because the prosecution will not call the subject to testify due to her 'credibility problems.'
DOJ-OGR-00018591.jpg
This court transcript details a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence in a case against the defendant, Epstein. The speaker argues that a topless photograph of a victim, taken at a tropical location consistent with flight records, is relevant to prove their relationship was sexual in nature. This evidence is intended to counter the defense's potential argument that the victim was merely a professional masseuse providing a treatment to the defendant at Mar-a-Lago.
DOJ-OGR-00018590.jpg
This document appears to be a transcript from a legal case, specifically case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The discussion revolves around the admissibility of photographs as evidence, the metadata associated with those photographs, and the age of the individual depicted in the photographs.
DOJ-OGR-00018589.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures legal arguments regarding a piece of evidence in a conspiracy trial. The prosecution asserts that a topless photograph of a victim, along with flight logs showing she traveled with Maxwell and Epstein at age 17, proves she was a minor victim of the conspiracy. The defense, represented by Ms. Menninger, counters that photo metadata and testimony from Mr. Alessi establish the victim was not a minor at the relevant times, arguing the prosecution's claim is contrary to its own evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018588.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe discusses the admissibility of two photographs (Government Exhibits 309 and 332); Exhibit 309 depicts a witness named Kate who testified earlier, while Exhibit 332 depicts a non-testifying victim. The discussion clarifies that a previously admitted version of Exhibit 332 was cropped to show only the face, and the government is now seeking to discuss the full photograph.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity