Event Details

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, explains why they did not show certain evidence to victims 'Jane' and 'Kate' during interviews to preserve the integrity of their memories against defense challenges. The Judge challenges the relevance of introducing photos taken in 2019 of 'movable objects' (specifically schoolgirl outfits) to prove a conspiracy that ended 15 years earlier.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the logistics of maintaining witness anonymity in the courtroom. Specifically, they discuss preventing the public from seeing identifying information on counsel's screens while ensuring the government and jurors have access to necessary documents.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a dispute over a witness's credibility ('impeaching') regarding where she lived at age 14. Ms. Moe argues the witness lived in a pool house due to financial issues, while Mr. Everdell argues that her 1994 Interlochen application lists a different address, contradicting her claim of being homeless or in a pool house.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell case). The Judge and attorneys (Moe, Menninger, Sternheim) discuss balancing public access with necessary redactions and establish time limits for upcoming arguments, with the government requesting up to 2.5 hours. Attorney Sternheim shares a brief anecdote about Judge Motley to contextualize strict time limits.