Event Details

This document is an email dated November 12, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to a colleague. The sender requests the preparation of a binder for an upcoming court appearance on the following Monday, attaching various legal documents related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, including motions regarding 'MV-3' (Minor Victim 3), expert witnesses Dietz and Loftus, and responses to the defense.

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Dec 8, 2021) discussing pre-trial motions in limine. The Court discusses the schedule for ruling on the Government's motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert witnesses Drs. Loftus and Dietz (likely Elizabeth Loftus and Park Dietz). The text also mentions disputes regarding Government Exhibit 52 and the introduction of co-conspirator statements, with a final pretrial conference scheduled for November 23.

This document is an email chain dated October 29, 2021, related to the US v. Maxwell case (S2 20 Cr 330). Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim circulates a courtesy copy of an ECF filing (a legal mail delivery request) to co-counsel (Everdell, Menninger, Pagliuca) and potentially opposing counsel. The top email discusses the filing and attempts to schedule a call regarding an issue to be addressed at the final pretrial conference scheduled for the following Monday at 11 a.m.

This document is a legal opinion or court order concerning pretrial proceedings related to Maxwell. It addresses motions in limine, pretrial disclosures, and scheduling, citing legal precedents like United States v. Thompson and United States v. Percevault. The Court sets a schedule for disclosures and notes that the S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge.

This document is an email chain from November 24, 2021, between unidentified legal professionals (likely DOJ prosecutors) regarding legal strategy. They are discussing a request for briefing materials to counter defense counsel's attempt to call numerous agents to testify in an effort to 'impeach the investigation.' One participant notes they are dealing with this same issue in the 'Maxwell' case (Ghislaine Maxwell) and shares a ruling from Judge Nathan (AJN) and relevant motions in limine (MIL).

This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.