Event Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (page 286) filed on February 24, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of Ms. Brune (likely a defense attorney), who is being questioned about her failure to bring Google search results regarding a juror to the Court's attention during or after voir dire. Brune defends her actions by stating she believed the information she found referred to a different person than the juror, based on the juror's sworn statements claiming to be a 'stay at home wife' rather than an attorney. Brune also affirms her obligation to the Court remains the same as when she was an Assistant US Attorney (AUSA).

This document is a page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues 'Procedural Errors' regarding the sentencing of a defendant (identified by the sentencing date of June 28, 2022, as likely Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically claiming the District Court miscalculated sentencing guidelines and adhered to a pre-determined 240-month sentence despite errors in the calculation range. It references the Presentence Report (PSR) and the 'SH' (Sentencing Hearing).

This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein. The questioning focuses on a Westlaw report, a Bronxville address, and the identification of Robert Conrad (an immigration judge) as the father of Catherine Conrad and 'head of household.' The witness also acknowledges seeing email traffic referencing Robert Conrad later in the process.

This document is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the end of a day's proceedings where Ms. Comey (Government) and Mr. Everdell (Defense) confirm they have no further matters, leading the Court to adjourn the session until December 10, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.

Pages 17 and 18 of a transcript from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal/post-trial hearings). A juror is being questioned about whether they intentionally provided inaccurate answers regarding a history of sexual abuse to get on the jury. The juror admits they did not fill out the questionnaire with diligence because they felt rushed and did not believe they would be selected.

This document is the cover page of a court transcript for a Bail Decision hearing held on July 18, 2019, in the case of United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 19 CR 490). Presided over by Judge Richard M. Berman, the document lists the appearances of the prosecution team (led by Geoffrey S. Berman) and Epstein's defense team (including Martin Weinberg and Michael Miller). Also noted as present are FBI Special Agent Amanda Young, NYPD Detective Paul Byrne, and Pretrial Services Officer John Moscato.

This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.

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.

This document is page 27 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues against the defense's motion for reconsideration of bail, stating the Court has already rejected comparisons to other high-profile cases (Esposito, Dreier, Madoff). The prosecution highlights the defendant's 'significant foreign connections' and 'sophistication in hiding those resources and herself' as reasons for continued detention.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Rodgers, who was the pilot of a Gulf Stream G2B. He testifies regarding flight number 916 on November 11, 1996, confirming a trip from Palm Beach, Florida, to Teterboro, New Jersey, carrying passengers including Jeffrey Epstein and a person identified only as 'Jane'.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness (Mrs. Dubin) by Mr. Pagliuca regarding a flight taken on November 21, 1995, from Teterboro, NJ to Palm Beach with Glen Dubin, their child, and a nanny. The defense attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to lines of questioning, and the witness states she does not recall the specific Thanksgiving trip mentioned.

A page from a legal document (Case 22-1426) dated July 8, 2022, listing the disposition of various criminal charges under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The charges include conspiracy to entice minors, coercion, transportation of minors for criminal sexual activity, and perjury. Most counts listed on this page are marked as 'Dismissed,' with one specific count of Coercion/Enticement (labeled 2ss) marked as 'Acquitted by Jury.' The text contains original typos such as 'OFA MINOT' and 'MONOR'.

This document contains a summary of court rulings denying several motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, including motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy, untimeliness, multiplicity, and pre-indictment delay. It also addresses a motion to compel statements from 'Minor-Victim 4' and reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in the Southern District of New York.

This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues points regarding the scope of plea agreements and Double Jeopardy. It analyzes the 'Abbamonte-Alessi rule' and the 'Annabi' precedent to determine if a plea agreement binding 'the Government' applies to other United States Attorney Offices (USAOs). The text argues that for charges to be distinct enough to bypass the rule, they must cover a new time period, noting that in the Annabi case, the conspiracy period was two years longer.

This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Aznaran, a CBP officer. The testimony focuses on the differences in CBP international flight records before and after September 11, 2001. Aznaran testifies that older records are less likely to contain definitive 'on-board' or 'not-on-board' status indicators.

This document is the final page (29 of 29) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the end of the court session where the jury is dismissed, and attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters. The court adjourns until December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330) denies bail arguments for the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court affirms that the Government's case is strong, relying on testimony from three witnesses regarding the enticement of minors, flight records, and links to Epstein. The document cites the Defendant's international ties, foreign citizenships, foreign property, and extraordinary financial resources as reasons for continued flight risk.

This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023, rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that her prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court argues that because Maxwell herself was not previously prosecuted or punished in the Florida investigation, and because Epstein's previous plea deal does not confer immunity to his co-conspirators, the charges against her stand. The text cites various legal precedents to support the Government's position that co-conspirators are not automatically protected by another's non-prosecution agreement.