Event Details

This document is page 52 of 80 from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the PA Supreme Court case J-100-2020 regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing whether former D.A. Bruce Castor's promise not to prosecute Bill Cosby constituted a binding immunity agreement. The court concludes that Castor's actions were a unilateral exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a formal contract or quid pro quo exchange. This legal precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) was likely cited in the Maxwell case to argue the validity or scope of the Epstein NPA.

This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing) concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge rejects claims regarding Maxwell's poor treatment at the MDC, citing her extensive access to resources, and highlights a pattern of dishonesty regarding her finances and civil deposition testimony (perjury). While noting that Maxwell and her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, acknowledged the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express remorse or accept responsibility for her actions.

This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The presiding judge rejects Maxwell's complaints about her treatment at the MDC, noting she had ample resources for legal preparation. The judge criticizes Maxwell for a pattern of dishonesty regarding finances and deflection of blame, noting that while she acknowledged the victims' suffering, she failed to accept personal responsibility.

This page from a legal filing (Document 307 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when the Government used her civil deposition testimony in her criminal trial. The text asserts that civil protective orders do not prevent testimony from being used in subsequent criminal proceedings and that Maxwell was free to plead the Fifth during the original civil case but chose not to. It also addresses an argument regarding the law firm BSF turning over transcripts.

This document is page 175 (labeled 148 internally) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It argues legal points regarding perjury counts, specifically discussing materiality standards for false statements in civil depositions and citing case law (Kross, Gaudin, Kungys). The text argues that a jury can follow limiting instructions to separate the substance of Giuffre's allegations from the determination of whether the defendant committed perjury.

This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.

This document is page 22 of a court ruling (Document 207) filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is denying Maxwell's motion to dismiss perjury counts, arguing that the ambiguity of questions and the materiality of her statements are issues of fact for a jury to decide, not grounds for pretrial dismissal. The text cites legal precedents regarding perjury, materiality in civil depositions, and the role of the jury.

This page is from a legal ruling in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal complexities of trying Maxwell for both perjury and Mann Act charges simultaneously, specifically focusing on the potential conflict of interest and prejudice if her civil attorneys are called as witnesses. The Court weighs the burden of separate trials against the lack of overlap in evidence between the perjury and sex trafficking charges.