SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00016115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the court and lawyers Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on courtroom logistics, such as arranging lawyers in a 'backup team' for social distancing, and the mechanics of presenting evidence, including physical binders for witnesses and folders for jurors, alongside a request to use electronic evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016114.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The presiding judge outlines the procedure for finalizing jury selection, swearing in the jury, and commencing opening statements, with specific attention paid to social distancing rules for unvaccinated jurors. Attorneys Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) are present, with Ms. Sternheim raising a protocol question regarding sidebars.
DOJ-OGR-00016113.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details the presiding judge's instructions to counsel regarding the final phase of jury selection, specifically managing 58 remaining jurors. The judge outlines the process for asking jurors about bias ('fair and impartial'), questioning those who raise concerns in the witness box, and the logistical procedure for exercising peremptory strikes at sidebar to select primary and alternate jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00016111.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, held on November 29, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It identifies the case number, the presiding judge (Hon. Alison J. Nathan), and lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution (United States of America) and the defense, as well as other individuals present from the FBI and NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00001965.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020, detailing the judge's rationale for denying bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. The court argues that Maxwell poses a significant flight risk due to her foreign connections and potential to evade monitoring, distinguishing her situation from other high-profile financial crime defendants like Madoff and Esposito. The page concludes with the defense introducing the COVID-19 pandemic as an argument for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001964.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 10, 2020, argues against granting bail to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution or court contends that her significant financial resources, demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets following the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, and her extraordinary capacity to evade detection make her a flight risk. The document concludes that even a bail package with electronic monitoring would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001963.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020, regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that Maxwell poses a 'substantial actual risk of flight' and that no conditions of release would be sufficient to assure her presence. The judge notes that Maxwell failed to provide a full accounting of her financial situation and that her proposed bail package, secured by a foreign property, was insufficient given her resources.
DOJ-OGR-00001962.jpg
This legal document from December 10, 2020, details a court's analysis of arguments from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The court dismisses the defense's claim that Maxwell is not a flight risk, finding her pre-indictment contact with the government insignificant and distinguishing her case from the legal precedent of U.S. v. Friedman. The court also suggests that Ms. Maxwell may not have fully grasped the severity of the charges against her until after she was formally indicted.
DOJ-OGR-00001961.jpg
This document is page 84 of a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020, regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is arguing that Maxwell poses a flight risk due to her substantial financial resources, foreign connections, lack of ties to the US, and the seriousness of the charges. The text notes that Maxwell's defense argues she did not flee after Epstein's arrest despite knowing she was under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001960.jpg
This document is page 83 of a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020, regarding the bail determination for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court argues that Maxwell poses a significant flight risk due to her awareness of the strong case against her, her substantial international ties, her French citizenship (noting non-extradition policies), and her extraordinary financial resources. The court dismisses her defenses regarding the non-prosecution agreement at this stage of the bail hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00001959.jpg
This page is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, detailing a judge's conclusion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's detention. The court argues for detention based on the serious nature of the crimes involving minors, the flight risk incentivized by a potential 35-year sentence, and the strength of the government's evidence, which includes detailed accounts from multiple victims corroborated by documentary evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001958.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 10, 2020, is a transcript from a court proceeding regarding a bail determination. The government argues for the detention of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, not on the basis of her being a danger to the community, but solely on her being an alleged flight risk. The text specifies that the government has the burden of proving this flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001956.jpg
This document is page 79 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. It captures the conclusion of the defense counsel's argument requesting strict bail conditions rather than detention, followed immediately by the Judge beginning to deliver their ruling. The Judge outlines the legal standards for detention, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and stating that detention is based on risk of flight or danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001955.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where an attorney argues for their client, likely concerning bail. The attorney refutes the government's claim that the client is a flight risk by distinguishing the current case from precedents like 'U.S. v. Zarger' and a prior case involving a 'Mr. Epstein', emphasizing that their client was in New Hampshire at the time of arrest and not making plans to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00001954.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, makes his final points to the judge, arguing against the government's reliance on the 'U.S. v. Epstein' case. Cohen contends that the Epstein case was primarily about 'dangerousness,' a legal issue not being pursued by the government in the current matter, making the precedent inapplicable.
DOJ-OGR-00001953.jpg
This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell case) filed on December 10, 2020. The Court questions Ms. Moe (Government) about whether statements made by alleged victims should be considered in the '3142 analysis' (bail determination). Ms. Moe clarifies that while victims have a right to speak under the Crime Victims Rights Act, the government is not using their testimony to support its specific motion, leading the Court to conclude it should not consider the substance of those statements for the bail analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00001952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, detailing a discussion about a defendant's pretrial detention. The judge questions the prosecutor, Ms. Moe, about legal arguments raised by the defense attorney, Mr. Cohen, concerning the burden of proof for flight risk. Ms. Moe argues that the defendant has the burden to rebut the presumption of detention and has failed to do so, justifying the government's request to keep her detained.
DOJ-OGR-00001951.jpg
This document is page 74 of a court transcript from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 10, 2020. A government prosecutor is arguing before the judge that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not protect the defendant (Maxwell) and asserting that the agreement does not bind the current office. The prosecutor further argues against bail, citing the defendant's extensive international ties, unknown finances, and lack of candor regarding resources to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00001950.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a bail hearing, dated December 10, 2020. A prosecutor argues against granting bail, stating the defendant is not being candid about her extensive financial resources and that surrendering passports is insufficient to prevent flight risk. The prosecutor cites the case of Jeffrey Epstein, as decided by Judge Berman, as a relevant precedent for denying bail on grounds of flight risk and dangerousness.
DOJ-OGR-00001949.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 10, 2020. The prosecution argues to the Judge that the defendant is a serious flight risk, justifying why they did not offer her the chance to surrender voluntarily. The prosecutor also notes the defendant's lack of candor regarding finances and references separate civil litigation where defense counsel refused to accept service on the defendant's behalf.
DOJ-OGR-00001948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020. In it, a government prosecutor, Ms. Moe of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, argues that the government's presentation is based on undisputed facts from a grand jury indictment, not media 'spin'. She references the indictment's 'chilling' allegations, including the trafficking of underage girls and the defendant's undisputed actions of living in hiding.
DOJ-OGR-00001947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, concludes his argument for his client's bail, asserting the government has failed to prove the client is a flight risk. He asks the judge to grant bail or to keep the proceeding open for a week to allow for the submission of more information.
DOJ-OGR-00001946.jpg
This is page 69 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 10, 2020. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney is arguing before the judge regarding her continued detention, stating that the government's cited case law regarding COVID-19 risks involves dangerous felons and is not relevant to Maxwell's situation. The attorney emphasizes the impossibility of preparing for trial with only four months of discovery while unable to meet the client in person due to BOP restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00001944.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, discussing a client's detention and the discovery process. Mr. Cohen argues that his client's arrest, despite voluntary surrender, limits access and that the COVID crisis complicates gathering financial information. He also highlights the government's request for an extended discovery period until November.
DOJ-OGR-00001943.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, detailing a discussion between attorney Mr. Cohen and The Court. Mr. Cohen describes the severe, solitary confinement-like conditions his client endured at the MDC, including denial of basic rights and access to legal counsel, and requests more time to address the court's concerns regarding financial matters. The Court seeks clarification on the nature of the client's detention, specifically if there was consent.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity