Event Details

This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 was dishonest about deleting his Instagram account and his ability to be impartial, noting he posted about the trial post-verdict. The defense explains they did not ask follow-up questions during voir dire because the juror denied bias, contrasting this with other jurors who disclosed abuse histories.

This document is an Appearance of Counsel form filed on November 6, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-09610-PAE). Attorney Alan Goldfarb of Miami, Florida, is entering his appearance to represent the Plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 17, in a lawsuit against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (executors of the Epstein Estate).

This document is an affidavit filed on June 30, 2023, by John McNichols, a partner at Williams & Connolly LLP, supporting his motion to appear pro hac vice in the case of Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund v. James Dimon, et al. The case involves JPMorgan Chase & Co. as a nominal defendant and lists numerous individual defendants including James Dimon and James E. Staley. McNichols attests to his good standing with the bars of Maryland, Virginia, and D.C., and lack of criminal or disciplinary history.

This is a Notice of Motion (Pretrial Motion #3) filed on February 4, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the SDNY. Maxwell's defense is moving to suppress evidence obtained via a government subpoena to a redacted entity and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment based on the Due Process Clause.

This document is a single-page placeholder for 'Exhibit I' within a court filing (Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS). The page indicates that the actual content of the exhibit has been fully redacted. The document was filed on June 30, 2016.

This document is a Protective Order designated as Exhibit A, filed on March 18, 2016, in the case of Plaintiff (Redacted) v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS) in the Southern District of New York. The order, signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 17, 2016, establishes protocols for handling confidential discovery materials, defining who may access such information and how it must be designated, sealed, and eventually destroyed or returned. It specifically notes that confidential information implicates the privacy interests of both the plaintiff and Ghislaine Maxwell.

This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 24, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues that Protective Orders can be modified as circumstances change and asserts that Ms. Maxwell did not waive her right to seek modification. The text claims the government circumvented Second Circuit processes regarding civil materials for grand jury use and cites various case laws supporting the court's power to modify protective orders.

Page 3 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 17, 2020, filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The majority of the page is heavily redacted. The visible text under the heading 'The Material' discusses the government contacting an unnamed party prior to February 2019 and serving a subpoena to produce materials, noting that Ms. Maxwell was not served with something specific.

This document is the signature page (page 10 of 11) of a legal filing in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated October 18, 2021, and filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text concludes a legal argument regarding hearsay evidence, asserting that a specific record does not meet the business records exception. It lists the defense legal team representing Maxwell, including attorneys from Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, Cohen & Gresser, and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim.

This document is page 3 of a legal letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated November 25, 2020, filed on December 4, 2020. The defense argues against the public identification of Ms. Maxwell's bail sureties (co-signers), citing significant privacy interests and fears of harassment for the sureties and their children. The defense requests an in camera conference and notes that the government consents to sealing the names of cosigners and confidential discovery materials but opposes the conference.

This is a Notice of Motion filed on February 4, 2021 (dated January 25, 2021) in the Southern District of New York regarding the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense is moving to suppress evidence obtained from a specific government subpoena (the target of which is redacted) and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment, citing Due Process violations. The defense also requested oral arguments for this motion.

This document is the first page of a character reference letter written by Isabel Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan in support of her sister, Ghislaine Maxwell, prior to sentencing. Isabel highlights her own professional credentials, affirms her presence at the trial, and describes Ghislaine's upbringing, specifically noting the impact of their brother's death and the values instilled by their parents.

This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated May 20, 2021. The text is upside down in the image. It appears to be the signature page of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement involving the SDNY (represented by Audrey Strauss, signed by Jessica Lonergan). The agreement stipulates that if the defendant completes supervision and fulfills terms, the Government will move to dismiss the indictment. The case number corresponds to United States v. Torgerson (involving the prison guards on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died).

This document is page 3 (labeled page 4 in the header filing) of a Protective Order from Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It outlines specific categories of individuals permitted to access 'Protected Material' or 'Confidential Information,' including attorneys, court personnel, and expert witnesses. The document includes track changes (red text) adding a clause allowing access to individuals who originally authored or previously received the protected materials.

This document is page 5 (filed as page 11 of 23) of a legal filing, specifically a Protective Order from Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It outlines procedures for handling confidential information, specifically requiring a Motion to Seal when filing such documents. A significant portion of the text regarding the objection process for confidential designations has been struck through (redlined), indicating it was removed or edited during the drafting process.

This document is page 24 of 33 from a court filing (Document 62) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 6, 2020. The text outlines the court's justification for a 'partial closure' of proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing legal precedent regarding public access to courts versus health safety concerns. It specifically references COVID-19 statistics in New Hampshire as of July 2, 2020, to support findings of necessity.

This document is the final page (page 22) of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail (Dkt. No. 97). The document cites United States v. Raniere as legal precedent regarding the evaluation of the motion.

This document is page 8 of a jury questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 9, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The juror answers 'No' to questions regarding bias against law enforcement searches (Q15), bias regarding expert witnesses (Q16), and concerns about following instructions to avoid media coverage (Q17). The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.

This document is a 'Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding' filed on July 6, 2020, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, which corresponds to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The form allows a defendant to waive their physical presence at arraignments or bail hearings, specifically citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification for remote proceedings. The specific image shows the blank form/template included in the court filing.

This document is the second page of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated June 23, 2022, signed by Robert Y. Lewis. It declares that on June 3, 2022, Lewis emailed the Victim Impact Statement of Elizbeth Stein to Ms. Geiser.

This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 354) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 15, 2021. The text argues that the Court has the authority to set an earlier deadline for the defense to file motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (the rape shield law), citing various precedents to support the Government's request for an earlier briefing schedule. The document references multiple other cases (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to demonstrate that courts frequently set Rule 412 deadlines more than 14 days prior to trial.

This is the final signature page (page 17 of 17) of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The page contains proposed jury instructions (Paragraph 67) regarding the prohibition of electronic communications and social media usage by jurors during the trial. It is signed by the prosecution team (US Attorney's Office) and the defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated October 11, 2021.