Event Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 45, filed on 04/01/2021) regarding a bail hearing. Defense counsel is arguing for the release of their client (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on the case ID context), asserting that while the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) gives victims a voice, it does not give them a 'veto' over a defendant's right to release. The counsel cites Judge Orenstein's opinion in *United States v. Turner* (2005) to support the argument that victim objections regarding flight risk should not automatically deny bail.

This document is a page from a court transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing, filed in July 2019. The Judge expresses shock that the prosecution ('The People,' represented by Ms. Gaffney) is arguing for a 'downward modification' (reduced risk level) in a case the Judge finds 'troubling.' Ms. Gaffney explains that despite the unusual nature of the request, they are bound by board guidelines not to rely on unindicted conduct, and notes that her attempts to get clear evidence or interview notes from Florida authorities were unsuccessful because 'they never did' interview the women on their own.

This document is page 27 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed Aug 4, 2022) involving an oral argument by a defense attorney. The attorney argues against the government's claim that a male subject 'must have known' about backdating transactions and tax irregularities, asserting the subject was merely a junior accountant in the 1980s earning a low salary and lacked the specific training ('mens rea') to understand the 'annual accounting rule' amidst the chaotic environment of a law firm. The text focuses heavily on legal standards regarding intent and negligence in tax law.

This is page 295 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Ms. Brune (likely Susan Brune, a defense attorney), is being questioned about a female partner in her law firm regarding ethical obligations and the review of a final brief. Brune confirms reviewing 'email traffic' leading up to the submission of a 'July 21st letter' to ensure material information was conveyed to the Court.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 268, Exhibit A-5725) filed on August 24, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brune regarding strategies used during jury selection (voir dire). Brune confirms utilizing Google, a database, the Nardello firm, and Dennis Donahue to research potential jurors to find those sympathetic to defense themes.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed in the case regarding Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text captures an attorney's argument concerning 'ineffective assistance' of counsel, specifically debating whether keeping a specific juror—who was a suspended lawyer—was a strategic choice or a 'tragic misjudgment.' The latter half of the page shifts to discussing financial transactions executed in February or March specifically to generate tax losses.

This document is a page from a court transcript involving the questioning of a witness named Edelstein by Mr. Okula. The testimony centers on the drafting of a legal brief submitted for a new trial motion, specifically regarding when the defense team (Edelstein and Susan Brune) learned about an Appellate Division report relative to receiving a government letter. The questioning also highlights that the brief was signed by Brune in New York and Edelstein in San Francisco.

This document is page 11 of a court transcript (filed March 24, 2022) discussing legal arguments regarding 'ineffective assistance' of counsel and 'waivers.' The speaker cites legal precedents including 'Chappee' in the First Circuit and 'Flores' in the Second Circuit, discussing the 'Rosario material' and '3500 material' (discovery rules) in the context of New York law and federal appeals.