Event Details

Court Order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on October 14, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a sealed letter regarding victim attendance at the trial and outlines COVID-19 protocols for public access, including overflow rooms. It designates Wendy Olson (Victim Witness Unit) to coordinate access for alleged victims and Joseph Pecorino (District Executive's Office) to coordinate access for the defendant's family.

An email dated October 22, 2021, from Jacklyn Thrapp, a reporter for The National Enquirer, sent to redacted recipients. Thrapp is inquiring about a rumor that a specific redacted individual will not be called to testify during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and asks for elaboration.

Court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on October 14, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a letter received from a lawyer for an alleged victim regarding trial attendance and establishes protocols for public and victim access during the trial, including COVID-19 measures and overflow rooms. Contact information is provided for Wendy Olson (Victim Witness Unit) and Joseph Pecorino (District Executive's Office) to coordinate access for victims and the defendant's family.

This document is the final page of a legal filing submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley on December 18, 2020. It concludes an argument urging the Court to keep Ghislaine Maxwell incarcerated until her trial, citing concerns that she might escape justice or abuse children again if released.

This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.

This document is page 19 of a filed juror questionnaire (Document 638) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 9, 2022. Juror ID 50 responds to questions 39, 40, and 41, indicating that their knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and his association with Ms. Maxwell would not prevent them from being impartial ('No' to bias questions) and affirming they can follow court instructions regarding evidence ('Yes' to following instructions). The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009680.

This document is a legal motion filed on June 26, 2022, in the Southern District of New York regarding the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. A victim identified as 'Jane Doe' (who testified under the pseudonym 'Kate') is requesting permission to deliver an oral victim impact statement at Maxwell's sentencing scheduled for June 28. The motion cites 18 U.S.C. § 3661 to support the inclusion of victim statements.

This document appears to be a page from a legal appellate brief filed on June 29, 2023, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance in the trial, asserting that the jury did not convict Maxwell solely based on the transport of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico, but rather on intentions to violate New York law. It cites various legal precedents regarding 'variance' and 'constructive amendment' in indictments.

This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on 02/25/22, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The court rejects Maxwell's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 violates her confrontation and due process rights, clarifying that Juror 50 is a factfinder, not a witness against her. The text cites various legal precedents to support the limitation on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.

This document is page 5 of a defense filing (dated June 24, 2022) related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the definition of 'victim' under the CVRA is narrower than sentencing guidelines and asserts that Maxwell's due process rights must be protected against new allegations in victim impact statements from accusers Annie Farmer and 'Kate' that were not cross-examined at trial. The document also attempts to impeach the credibility of Virginia Giuffre, noting she did not testify and alleging in a footnote that she failed to disclose prior abuse by a man named Ron Eppinger.

This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 346) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney argues that incompetence at the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) is hindering Maxwell's ability to review vital trial materials and prepare for her defense. Sternheim characterizes the detention conditions as 'extraordinary and onerous' for a nearly 60-year-old non-violent detainee and warns that inaction may erode constitutional rights and delay the trial.

This page from a 2023 appellate filing (likely by the government) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four properly qualify as offenses involving sexual abuse of a child, citing testimony from a victim named 'Jane.' It also begins a section defending the District Court's decision regarding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse during jury selection.