Event Details

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 prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Everdell) argue over the admissibility and context of photos found on a bookshelf, which include images of 'Jane' and nude females. There is a specific dispute over Jane's age at the time (15 vs 19), after which the discussion shifts to the introduction of evidence (video, photos) through a witness named Mr. Parkinson.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural argument between attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe before the Court regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The dispute centers on whether a letter written by Jane's civil attorney can be used to refresh her recollection without introducing hearsay into the record.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The Court and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca) discuss the admissibility of testimony regarding an exhibit, specifically a 'book' (likely an address book) where the witness noted his and his wife's names were missing, leading him to believe it was a later version. The judge sustains a foundation objection and orders the jury to disregard the witness's belief about the book's version.

This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe discusses the admissibility of two photographs (Government Exhibits 309 and 332); Exhibit 309 depicts a witness named Kate who testified earlier, while Exhibit 332 depicts a non-testifying victim. The discussion clarifies that a previously admitted version of Exhibit 332 was cropped to show only the face, and the government is now seeking to discuss the full photograph.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a dialogue between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Ms. Moe regarding the direct examination of witness 'A. Farmer' (likely Annie Farmer). The Judge sustains a hearsay objection, instructing that facts regarding presence in New Mexico should be established when Maria Farmer testifies later, rather than through the current witness via hearsay.

This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue over the admissibility of questions regarding a witness's ('Jane') settlement negotiations, with the defense arguing it proves bias and the prosecution objecting under Rule 408. The Judge intercedes by citing *Manko v. United States*, suggesting that the civil settlement exclusion rule (Rule 408) may not apply in criminal prosecutions.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of an expert witness named Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), who is explaining the stages of memory—specifically retention, retrieval, and acquisition—and how psychological factors can affect memory accuracy.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admission of Exhibit 52 (and sub-exhibits A, D, E, F, G, H) in redacted form. The header indicates this occurred during the direct examination of witness Alessi.

This document is an index page (Page 266 of 267) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists the examination of four witnesses: William Brown, Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan, and Janice Swain. The index details which attorneys conducted the direct, cross, and redirect examinations for each witness, referencing specific page numbers in the full transcript.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger regarding the admissibility of testimony from a witness named 'Jane' about her mother. Specifically, Ms. Moe argues to admit statements where Jane's mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor, instructing Jane never to talk about what happens in their house; the Court agrees to admit this with a limiting instruction that it is offered for the effect on the listener, not for the truth of the mother's statements.

This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a legal argument between attorney Ms. Pomerantz and the Judge regarding the admissibility of questions related to 'grooming' and 'sexual gratification.' The Judge references a 'Daubert context' (expert witness admissibility) and compares the testimony to a 'pimp-prostitute context.'

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Visoski. Under questioning by defense attorney Mr. Everdell, Visoski denies seeing any hint of inappropriate sexual activity or underage girls during roughly 30 years of working for Jeffrey Epstein, stating he would have reported it and quit if he had. The cross-examination concludes, and prosecutor Ms. Comey begins her redirect examination.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Attorney Ms. Moe and the Court discuss the admissibility of exhibits 1B, 3P, and 3X, debating hearsay objections and the criteria for the 'business records' exception. The Judge outlines the requirements for establishing a foundation for business records.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that there are witnesses the defense considered calling but did not because these individuals would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, as the government could have charged them criminally based on prior testimony. The Court acknowledges that the defense cannot offer immunity like the government can, but views the jury charge under discussion as standard.

This document is page 4 of 49 from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys Everdell and Menninger discuss procedural logistics with the Court, including the distribution of exhibits to jurors and the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer, who is noted as testifying openly rather than anonymously. Ms. Comey, representing the government, offers no objection to the handling of juror exhibits.

This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a courtroom exchange where Prosecutor Ms. Moe asks jurors to review Government Exhibit 52G (sealed), specifically trying to point them to entries regarding 'massage, Florida.' Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to this direction, and the objection is sustained by the Court, allowing jurors to review the document without specific direction.