Relationship Details

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 details a legal argument between Ms. Menninger (Defense) and Ms. Comey (Prosecution) regarding Federal Rule 16 and the disclosure of impeachment evidence. The Defense argues that documents used for impeachment (bias, motive, memory) do not need to be produced to the government beforehand, while the Prosecution contests this interpretation.

This document is a court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca discuss scheduling and stipulations regarding 'prior inconsistent statements' found in FBI 302 reports for witnesses identified as Carolyn, Jane, and Annie. The court focuses on resolving issues related to 'Carolyn' immediately as she is an out-of-state witness present to testify that afternoon.

This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey informs the court that stipulations have been reached and the case is nearing conclusion, though one disputed issue remains. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger begins to address the court regarding this disputed fact.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) involving a procedural discussion between the Judge, Defense Counsel Ms. Menninger, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on how to handle a witness who intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment and another witness who refused to communicate with the defense. The Judge expresses frustration with potential delays, stating the issue needs to be resolved immediately ('happen yesterday').

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Ms. Meder. Prosecutor Ms. Comey attempts to ask the witness about specific initials on black binders and dates on CDs, but Defense Attorney Ms. Menninger successfully objects on hearsay grounds. The witness is subsequently excused by the Court.

This document is a page from the rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number). Comey argues that the testimony of four key witnesses (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) is sufficient for a guilty verdict and refutes defense attorney Ms. Menninger's claims regarding age limits at the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Comey also details witness testimony corroborating that the victim 'Annie' was 16, not 17, during a trip to Santa Fe.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Ms. Comey and Ms. Menninger discuss with the Court the admissibility of testimony and specific emails involving Mr. Glassman (referencing 'The Lion King') and Mr. Rossmiller. The discussion centers on a prior ruling limiting testimony from attorneys to specific statements regarding whether testifying would help the defendant's case.

This document is page 26 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge is issuing rulings regarding the admissibility of prior statements made by witnesses 'Jane' and 'Annie' to determine if they constitute inconsistencies for impeachment. The court rules that several statements regarding details such as a timeline, the presence of a chef, and the amount of horseback riding are either not inconsistent or are collateral matters.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring a rebuttal argument by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refutes the defense's suggestion (attributed to Ms. Menninger) that the FBI manipulated witnesses or asked leading questions, citing the ethical testimony of Special Agent Young. She argues that the victims (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) did not misremember the defendant's role in their abuse and that the defense's argument relies on the jury believing all witnesses are liars.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal debate between Ms. Menninger (defense) and Ms. Comey (prosecution) regarding the scope of closing arguments related to impeachment and witness statements. Additionally, Ms. Comey notes that due to rulings on 'Annie Farmer statements,' it is no longer necessary to call AUSA Rossmiller as a witness.