Event Details

This is page 7 of a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim dated April 15, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for a continuance (delay) of the trial due to a second superseding indictment which doubles Maxwell's sentencing exposure, while noting that continued detention prejudices the defendant. It also mentions an upcoming bail appeal hearing at the Second Circuit scheduled for April 26th.

This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on October 29, 2021. It is a legal argument seeking to exclude the testimony of an expert witness named Rocchio, arguing that her opinions on 'grooming' and sexual abuse are based on unverified personal beliefs rather than scientific methodology or representative studies. The text cites various legal precedents (including Supreme Court rulings) to support the claim that Rocchio's testimony is unreliable and 'virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination.'

This is page 21 of a court filing (Document 643-1) dated March 11, 2022, containing a completed questionnaire for Juror ID 50. The juror affirms (by checking boxes) that their knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell would not prevent them from being fair and impartial, and that they could decide the case based solely on the evidence presented at trial.

This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the jury trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The proceedings took place on December 18, 2021, at 9:10 a.m. in the Southern District of New York before Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document lists the legal appearances for both the prosecution (US Attorneys including Maurene Comey) and the defense (including Jeffrey Pagliuca and Christian Everdell).

This document is page 2 of a deferred prosecution agreement filed in May 2021 (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT), likely concerning a Bureau of Prisons employee involved in the Epstein case (guards Tova Noel or Michael Thomas). The text outlines conditions of release, including mandatory cooperation with the FBI and DOJ-OIG regarding BOP activities, 100 hours of community service, and potential administrative termination of employment. The agreement allows for the deferral (and eventual dismissal) of prosecution if all conditions are met over a six-month period.

This document is page 12 of 13 from a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2020. It outlines legal stipulations regarding the handling of confidential information, specifically setting timelines relative to appeals and dismissals (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Paragraphs 19 and 20 detail that the provisions remain in effect until mutual written agreement or court order, and mandate that the Government and Defense Counsel meet to discuss evidence presentation prior to hearings or trial.

This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, in which the Government argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Citing the 'magnitude and abhorrence of Epstein's crimes' and a July 6, 2025 Memorandum, the Government asserts that public interest warrants disclosure, subject to redactions protecting victims. The document details that the Epstein grand jury met in June/July 2019, and the Maxwell grand jury met in June/July 2020 and March 2021.

A court calendar notice for the Circuit Criminal Felony division in Florida regarding case numbers 06CF009454AXX and 08CF009381AXX against Jeffrey Epstein. The document adds an event (likely a status hearing) to the calendar for June 30, 2008, at 8:30 AM, with the note 'Counsel Agreed'. The document was filed on June 27, 2008.

This document is page 2 of a legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, dated March 31, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that any delay in the trial schedule is the fault of the government for filing a late superseding indictment despite previous assurances (cited from a July 14, 2020 transcript) that they did not anticipate doing so. The defense claims this expansion of the case prejudices Maxwell, prolongs her detention, and transforms the proceedings from a 'two-week' trial into a much longer affair.

This is page 13 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court is analyzing the defendant's flight risk, concluding that her French citizenship, potential to flee to Israel, and extraordinary financial resources justify continued detention. The judge argues that anticipatory extradition waivers are insufficient because the defendant could still frustrate or delay the extradition process.

This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities listing case law citations. It was filed on July 10, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell). The page lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and 'United States v. Kashoggi', referencing rulings from the S.D.N.Y., 2nd Circuit, and other jurisdictions regarding bail or detention issues (inferred from the statute 18 U.S.C. § 3142).

This document is the final page of a declaration filed on December 14, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application. The redacted author explains their initial reluctance to co-sign due to media aggression but expresses a firm belief in Maxwell's innocence regarding Epstein's crimes and her intent to stand trial in the U.S. The author concludes by offering prayers for Maxwell, justice, due process, and Epstein's victims.

This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text presents a legal argument supporting the detention of the defendant by distinguishing her case from previous instances where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and comparing her to cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho). Notably, it cites a 2001 case, 'United States v. Epstein,' as precedent for denying bail based on dual citizenship and lack of extradition treaties; however, this 2001 citation likely refers to a different defendant named Epstein (in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) rather than Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, analyzing the potential human rights objections Ghislaine Maxwell might raise against extradition to the US. The text specifically argues that Maxwell is unlikely to succeed in claiming a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR regarding prison conditions, citing numerous legal precedents where such claims were rejected. Footnotes reference specific cases and US detention facilities (MDC and MCC) in New York.

This document is Page 7 of a court filing (Document 8) from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on November 19, 2019. It outlines the additional conditions of release for a defendant, including a $100,000 personal recognizance bond co-signed by two people, travel restrictions limited to NY and NJ districts, surrender of travel documents, and a prohibition on possessing weapons or contacting a co-defendant without counsel. The defendant was to be released on their own signature with remaining conditions to be met by November 26, 2019.

This document is page 5 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 9, 2021, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text discusses the legal admissibility of Government Exhibit 52 (GX 52), identified as a household directory from the Palm Beach property. The court argues that witness Mr. Alessi sufficiently authenticated the book based on his familiarity with it, despite Defense objections regarding the chain of custody and physical alterations (Post-it notes, pencil markings).

This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses the Court's jury instructions regarding the Mann Act, specifically focusing on whether the defendant intended for victims (referred to as 'Jane,' 'Kate,' and 'Annie') to engage in sexual activity in New York in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The text argues that the Court properly defined the scope of the alleged crimes and limited the jury's consideration to specific state offenses.

This is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings are taking place without the jury present. The Court discusses upcoming masking rules due to COVID-19 concerns, wishes the counsel happy holidays, and adjourns the trial until December 27, 2021. Ms. Comey (Prosecution) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters to discuss.

This document is a page from a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for a new trial based on the alleged dishonesty of Juror No. 50 during voir dire, specifically regarding social media usage (Twitter/Instagram) and a failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense draws a parallel to Juror No. 55, who was dismissed for cause after similar dishonesty regarding Twitter was discovered.

This document is page 6 (labeled as -7- in the footer) of a jury questionnaire filed on February 24, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The respondent, Juror ID 50, answers 'No' to questions regarding scheduling conflicts, language barriers, medical conditions, or medication that would prevent them from serving on the jury.

This document is Page 5 of a legal filing (Document 397) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents the Government's argument to admit the testimony of Dr. Lisa Rocchio, an expert in trauma psychology. It outlines her credentials and details her expected testimony regarding the grooming process, manipulation tactics used by abusers, and why victims often delay disclosure or fail to recognize abuse while it is occurring.

This document is page 6 of 29 from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 14, 2020. It outlines the legal framework and procedural hurdles for appealing extradition in the United Kingdom under the Extradition Act 2003, noting the specific roles of the Secretary of State, High Court, and Supreme Court. The text emphasizes the rarity of successful appeals to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights in extradition cases.

This page is part of a legal filing (Document 97-21) filed on December 14, 2020, analyzing the likelihood of Ghislaine Maxwell successfully contesting extradition under UK law. The text argues that Maxwell cannot rely on 'passage of time' or 'forum' bars to prevent extradition, citing that while some conduct occurred in London, the majority of harm occurred in the US. It heavily references the Extradition Act 2003 and various legal precedents (Tollman, Gomes, Kakis).

This page contains a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A defense attorney is arguing before the judge to limit the testimony of a witness named Mr. Flatley. The argument focuses on distinguishing between factual testimony regarding metadata (which the defense accepts) and expert opinion, as well as precluding testimony regarding CDs (Compact Discs) because Flatley was only disclosed to review 'devices.'

This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's release by distinguishing her case from precedents where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and aligning it with cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho, and a 2001 case United States v. Epstein). The 'United States v. Epstein' cited here refers to a 2001 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving a defendant with German/Brazilian dual citizenship, used here as legal precedent for denying bail based on lack of extradition treaties.

This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.

This page is from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the legal standards for bail and detention, specifically addressing 'flight risk' and the burden of production. While the court acknowledges the defendant met a limited burden regarding family ties and finances, section B explicitly states that 'The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination,' implying a denial of the renewed motion for bail based on factors including the nature of the offense (involving a minor victim).

This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 171) from March 2021 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing for bail release conditions. The defense proposes appointing retired Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. to monitor Maxwell's and her spouse's assets, specifically including proceeds from the sale of her London home. The text counters government arguments regarding Maxwell's 'lack of candor' by noting she was questioned by Pretrial Services while under extreme conditions including solitary confinement and suicide watch.

This document is page 9 of a filed jury questionnaire (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the responses of Juror ID 50 to three specific legal questions (12, 13, and 14) regarding the defendant's right not to testify, the requirement to judge solely on evidence, and the separation of verdict from punishment. Juror 50 answered 'Yes' to accepting all three legal principles.

This document is Page 3 of a Protective Order filed on July 25, 2019, in the case USA v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). It outlines strict protocols for handling 'Discovery' materials, including requirements for encryption and password protection when sharing with defense staff or experts. It explicitly prohibits the Government, the Defendant, or Counsel from posting any discovery information on the Internet or social media.

This is Page 3 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that the Defense's proposed deadline of November 15, 2021, for filing Rule 412 motions (concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding a victim's sexual behavior) is too close to trial, specifically conflicting with jury selection and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Government requests an earlier deadline to ensure victims have sufficient notice and the Court has time to resolve sensitive issues.

This document is a page from a court filing containing an excerpt of an interview with a juror named David regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. David explains to 'The Independent' why the jury acquitted Maxwell on 'count two' related to accuser Jane, citing a lack of direct evidence for 'enticement' across state lines despite believing the victim. The text also highlights corroborating evidence such as flight logs and Epstein's 'little black book,' which contained names of victims alongside 'mom' and 'dad,' as well as Palm Beach police officers listed familiarly.

This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.

This document is page 17 of a court filing (Document 22) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 13, 2020. The text argues against granting bail, citing an 'extraordinary risk of flight' and rejecting the defendant's claim that detention at the MDC prevents adequate preparation for defense. The filing cites numerous precedents (Tolentino, Adamu, Brito, etc.) where bail was denied despite access-to-counsel restrictions, distinguishing the current case from *United States v. Stephens*.

This document is page 38 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. It discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances,' heavily citing Pennsylvania case law involving Bill Cosby (Commonwealth v. Cosby) and Andrea Constand. The text argues that the similarity of crimes can outweigh the remoteness in time between incidents.

This document is the signature and notarization page for a legal instrument (likely an affidavit) signed by Maria Farmer on April 12, 2019. The document was notarized by Deborah C. Knowlton in Broward County, Florida, noting that Farmer appeared via video conference. The document was subsequently filed on April 16, 2019, as part of Case 1:19-cv-03377.

This page is from a legal filing dated December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the defendant is not explicitly named in the body text. The text outlines legal arguments regarding pre-trial detention, citing the Bail Reform Act and specific statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423) related to sex offenses involving minors, which create a presumption of detention. It discusses the legal standards for reopening a detention hearing and the burden of proof regarding flight risk, citing precedents from the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y.

This document is page 135 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the current case is distinguishable from past precedents regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of false evidence. The text asserts that the defendant has not been deprived of a fair trial and notes that a jury will determine if her statements during April and July 2016 depositions were perjurious.

This document is page 28 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on December 18, 2020. The Government argues against granting the defendant's bail package, asserting that she has transferred the majority of her wealth to her husband over the last five years, meaning any bond posted by him would essentially be her own money, reducing the 'moral suasion' preventing flight. The document cites legal precedent (United States v. Boustani) rejecting a 'two-tiered bail system' that favors wealthy defendants who can afford private security.

This is a 'Commitment to Another District' court form from the District of New Hampshire regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on July 2, 2020. It lists specific charges originating from the Southern District of New York, including conspiracy to entice minors for illegal sex acts, transportation of minors for criminal sexual activity, and perjury. The document notes Maxwell is represented by Lawrence Vogelman, Esq., and identifies the case numbers 20-mj-132-01-AJ (NH) and 20 CR 330 (Charging District).

This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' provided false answers during voir dire regarding social media usage to hide biases and ensure selection, noting he later used Twitter to contact victim Annie Farmer and appeared in an ITV documentary. The text contrasts this behavior with Juror No. 55, whose falsehoods were exposed through follow-up questioning.

This document is page 7 (internal pagination -8-) of a filled-out juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Juror ID 50 answers 'No' to having beliefs that prevent rendering a verdict, 'Yes' to accepting the Judge's authority on the law, and 'Yes' to accepting the presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

This document is page 11 of a filled-out juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The respondent, identified as Juror ID 50, answers 'No' to questions regarding prior jury service (Questions 18-19), involvement in court cases as a witness/defendant/victim (Question 20), and involvement in government investigations (Question 21). The document bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) recording the voir dire process of a prospective juror. The Court confirms the juror has not discussed the case, checks their availability for a six-week trial starting November 29, and asks them to review lists of names and entities to check for conflicts of interest or familiarity. The juror indicates they have no familiarity with the names or entities presented.

This is a page from a legal filing (Government's opposition) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecution argues that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay—specifically citing dead witnesses, lost Epstein employees, and corrupted memories—are insufficient to warrant dismissal based on established legal precedents. The document cites various case laws (Marion, Snyder, Iannelli, King) to support the position that fading memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in delays and do not automatically constitute actual prejudice.

This legal filing (Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding sex trafficking, coercive control, and the psychological relationship between pimps and victims. It cites several precedents (Kelly, Torres, Randall, Dupigny) where such testimony was permitted. Specifically, it defends the qualifications of Dr. Rocchio, a Brown University professor with 25 years of clinical experience, noting that the defendant does not contest her expertise.

This is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS, Giuffre v. Maxwell) filed on March 4, 2016. It outlines the procedures for challenging 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential' designations of discovery material. It specifies that failing to challenge a designation immediately does not waive the right to do so later, and outlines a process requiring written notice and potential court hearings to resolve disputes over these designations.

This page is from a legal filing dated December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), though the defendant is not explicitly named in the body text. The text outlines legal arguments regarding pre-trial detention, citing the Bail Reform Act and specific statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423) related to sex offenses involving minors, which create a presumption of detention. It discusses the legal standards for reopening a detention hearing and the burden of proof regarding flight risk, citing precedents from the Second Circuit and S.D.N.Y.

This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a court filing dated February 4, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists legal precedents (cases), statutes, and rules relied upon in the main document. Key statutes cited include 18 U.S.C. § 2421, 2422, and 2423, which relate to the transportation of individuals for illegal sexual activity (Mann Act) and sexual exploitation of minors.

This document is a letter dated August 5, 2025, addressed to Judges Engelmayer and Berman from an unnamed victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The author expresses frustration with the judicial process, specifically questioning why subpoenas have not been issued for US Virgin Islands officials or Epstein's financial staff (attorney and accountant). The letter explicitly references Leon Black's payments to Epstein and alleges Epstein's accountant removed items from the NY mansion immediately following Epstein's death.

This document is page 45 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'Inferred bias' and 'Actual bias' in jurors, citing the precedent case 'Torres' extensively. It argues that bias should be inferred when a juror's past experiences or conduct closely approximate that of the defendant, implying this legal standard applies to the current case (likely referring to Juror 50 in the Maxwell trial).

This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated July 29, 2025, concerning the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for disclosure based on intense public interest and the 'magnitude and abhorrence' of Epstein's crimes, while noting that victim identification will be redacted. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and details the dates of the original grand jury proceedings in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

This is page 8 of a court filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's attempt to issue a subpoena to 'BSF' (Boies Schiller Flexner), characterizing it as an improper 'fishing expedition' for victim information and impeachment material that violates the 'Nixon test.' The Government also notes that the defendant failed to file a required response by the April 2, 2021 deadline.

This document is page 20 of a legal filing dated June 23, 2022, regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that victims named Sarah and Elizabeth should be entitled to deliver oral victim impact statements at the sentencing. The filing requests that if the Court doubts this entitlement, they be granted more time to brief the issue, noting they only had 48 hours to respond to a previous court order.

This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.