Unknown (Trial Date)
Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes.
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | person | 1588 | View Entity |
| The Court | organization | 2003 | View Entity |
| MR. PAGLIUCA | person | 1022 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00013360.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the admissibility of certain phone records/notes (specifically mentioning one labeled 'JE Natasha'), claiming they lack reliability, dates, and signatures, and do not meet the business record exception. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the records are valid to show who called 'the house' and when, noting that witnesses have corroborated names found in these records.
Events with shared participants
The Court announced a 15-minute morning break for the jury.
2022-08-10
A discussion took place regarding the order of witnesses for the day's trial proceedings.
2022-08-10 • courthouse
Deposition of an unnamed witness conducted by Mr. Edwards, with Mr. Pagliuca present as counsel. The topic is photographs taken by an unnamed male.
Date unknown • Not mentioned
The jury selection process where Juror 50 gave answers that corroborated his hearing testimony.
Date unknown
The Government gave on-the-record assurances to the Court regarding investigative files.
2020-07-14
A discussion between attorneys and the court regarding how to respond to a jury note.
2022-08-10 • Courtroom
A summation by Ms. Moe recounting Jane's testimony was filed with the court.
2022-08-10
Court proceeding regarding witness strategy in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
2022-08-10 • Courtroom
Direct examination of witness Hesse regarding message taking procedures.
2022-08-10 • Courtroom
Jury Deliberation/Instruction
Date unknown • Courtroom
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event