August 10, 2022
Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | person | 1588 | View Entity |
| government counsel | person | 14 | View Entity |
| Ms. Sternheim | person | 877 | View Entity |
| The Court | organization | 2003 | View Entity |
| MS. MENNINGER | person | 1436 | View Entity |
| Ms. Comey | person | 1419 | View Entity |
| MR. PAGLIUCA | person | 1022 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00016219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admission of 'Exhibit 52.' The defense (Pagliuca) argues that only photocopies of specific pages, not the entire exhibit, were intended for the jury, while the full exhibit should be preserved for appellate purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00017565.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal debate between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger). The issue concerns the admissibility of statements made by the witness 'Jane's' mother; the government argues it is for the 'effect on the listener' rather than the truth of the matter, while the defense argues it introduces hearsay and precludes cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe and others) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The Court agrees to allow the parties to resolve these redaction issues and an attorney-client privilege issue over the upcoming weekend.
DOJ-OGR-00018942.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features an argument by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admissibility of evidence under the business records exception (Rule 803.6), specifically challenging the consistency of record-keeping in a 'book' and 'Western Union money transfer records' after an individual named Mr. Alessi left in 2002. The defense argues that the records do not meet the standard of a regular business practice.
DOJ-OGR-00016723.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Sternheim), and the Prosecution (Ms. Comey). The primary topic is whether the government intends to call a rebuttal witness; Ms. Comey indicates they are leaning against it but will decide by the next morning.
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
A deposition was conducted, as evidenced by the transcript.
Date unknown • Not specified
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
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event