Relationship Details

This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to Maxwell. The judge found that the government had proven Maxwell is a substantial flight risk, citing her failure to provide her whereabouts, her significant and opaque financial resources, and her demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets. Consequently, Judge Nathan concluded that even the most restrictive release conditions would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.

An email thread from July 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and unknown recipients regarding the case US v. Maxwell. An Assistant US Attorney provides the grand jury return for a superseding indictment, noting it is unsealed and was presented to Judge Nathan. A subsequent email requests the immediate docketing of the indictment on ECF to ensure notice is given before the defendant's upcoming arraignment.

This document is page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020. It argues that the government fails to acknowledge that Ms. Maxwell is prohibited by a protective order (upheld by Judge Nathan) from disclosing specific details. These prohibited disclosures include the identity of a 'Recipient,' materials obtained by the government, details about the bulk of the case against her, and why 'Court-2' declined a government request; all specific details regarding these points are heavily redacted.

This legal document details the rejection of defendant Maxwell's appeal arguments concerning Juror 50. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's claim of implied bias, based on the juror's personal history, to be unfounded, noting that the defense failed to pursue follow-up questions during voir dire. The document upholds Judge Nathan's determination that Juror 50 was credible, despite erroneous questionnaire answers, and that his post-verdict statements were properly disregarded.

Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.

This document is a page from a legal brief (likely by the Government) appearing in the appellate case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues that the statute of limitations for the charges against Maxwell had not expired due to the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. The text supports Judge Nathan's lower court ruling that applying this amendment was not an impermissible retroactive effect, distinguishing Maxwell's situation from the precedent set in United States v. Richardson.

This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.

This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770, dated May 27, 2021) outlines the Government's argument for the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It references three denied bail applications and details a specific hearing on July 14, 2020, where Judge Nathan ruled Maxwell a flight risk based on strong evidence and the nature of the offenses. The document highlights that the indictment is supported by three victim-witnesses, corroborated by flight records and diaries.

This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 16, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The text contends that Judge Nathan's refusal to modify a Protective Order is not an 'immediately appealable collateral order' and does not fall under categories allowing prejudgment appeals in criminal cases.

This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) detailing the procedural history of a hearing concerning 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes how Judge Nathan ordered a hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to answer jury selection questions truthfully regarding past sexual abuse. The document notes that on March 8, 2022, Juror 50 testified under immunity and admitted that his answers to specific questions (25 and 48) were inaccurate.

This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against an interlocutory appeal sought by a party named Maxwell. The author contends that Maxwell's reasons for appeal, related to pretrial discovery and the potential unsealing of documents, do not meet the high legal threshold for an appeal before a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including cases like *United States v. Martoma* and *United States v. Guerrero*, to support its position that the issues are not significant enough to warrant immediate review.

This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.

This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes claims made by an inmate named Maxwell regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC. It distinguishes her situation from a case involving Tiffany Days, who experienced sewage flooding at a different facility (the MCC), and argues there is no evidence of such issues at the MDC. The document also counters Maxwell's claim of being in "solitary confinement" by detailing her daily access to a day room and various amenities for thirteen hours.

This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Maxwell to consolidate her criminal and civil appeals. The Government asserts that Maxwell's motion is a strategic attempt to circumvent an order by Judge Nathan that restricts the use of criminal discovery materials in her civil litigation. The filing warns that consolidating the cases would effectively reverse the judge's order without a proper appeal and raises concerns about disseminating sensitive, sealed criminal documents to civil litigants.

This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, outlines a series of events in a criminal case against a defendant named Maxwell. It details that on July 30, 2020, Judge Nathan issued a protective order preventing criminal discovery materials from being used in civil litigation, and on September 2, 2020, denied Maxwell's motion to modify this order. Consequently, Maxwell filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.

This legal document, part of Case 21-770, is a filing by the defense for a defendant named Maxwell. The defense argues that the government's indictment and additional charges are not evidence, do not strengthen the case, and do not justify her continued detention. The document also refutes the government's claim of corroborated witness testimony and notes that the defense has requested a continuance for the July trial, arguing that denying bail under these circumstances would be prejudicial.

This legal document discusses an appeal by a party named Maxwell, who is attempting to overturn a jury verdict due to errors made by Juror 50 on a questionnaire. The document outlines Judge Nathan's findings from a hearing, where she concluded that the juror's errors were inadvertent and his testimony was credible. Judge Nathan's opinion is that there are insufficient grounds to justify overturning the verdict based on this issue.

This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.

This legal document, dated April 12, 2021, is a page from a 'Statement of Facts' in the case against Maxwell. It outlines the indictment charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997, detailing her alleged methods of grooming victims. The document also notes that a superseding indictment expanded the charges and timeframe to 2004, and mentions that Judge Nathan had previously denied Maxwell's bail applications, with her trial scheduled for July 12, 2021.

This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, outlines the procedural history of defendant Maxwell's attempts to secure pretrial release. It details how Judge Nathan denied her bail applications on December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, and how the Court affirmed these denials on April 27, 2021. The document also notes that Maxwell filed another renewed motion on May 17, 2021, and that her trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021.