Relationship Details

This legal document addresses Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable, detailing evidence of her involvement in transporting Jane for sexual abuse in New York and other conduct in New Mexico. It references allegations that Epstein and Maxwell groomed victims. The document concludes that Maxwell was not unfairly prejudiced and that her above-Guidelines sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was procedurally reasonable.

This legal document, part of an appeal, addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's claims that her trial was unfair and her sentence unreasonable. The court rejects her argument that evidence of her conduct in New Mexico was prejudicial, noting the evidence was disclosed weeks before trial. The document also affirms that her 240-month sentence, which included a leadership enhancement, was procedurally reasonable.

This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, details the Government's arguments during the trial of Maxwell, focusing on the legal requirement that the criminal conduct was directed at New York. The prosecution argued that transporting victims like Jane to New York and intending for abuse to occur there was sufficient for conviction, even if the abuse itself happened elsewhere. The document also mentions the District Court's jury instructions, which focused on Maxwell's intent for sexual activity to take place in New York.

This document is a court transcript of a rebuttal by Ms. Comey in a criminal case. She argues against the defense's claim that four women (Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie) are misremembering their experiences, asserting that their core memories of trauma involving the defendant (Maxwell) and Epstein are solid and reliable. The prosecutor highlights specific, vivid memories of the victims to counter the defense's theory of a 'massive false memory event'.

This document is a page from a court transcript of a summation by Ms. Moe in the case against Maxwell. The summation outlines three conspiracy counts, alleging that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell conspired with Epstein to commit crimes against victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie. Ms. Moe argues that Maxwell groomed Carolyn and Annie as part of an agreement to provide Epstein with underage girls for abuse, which constitutes the conspiracy.

This document is a court transcript of a prosecutor's (Ms. Moe) summation in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutor argues that Maxwell was an essential accomplice to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically detailing how she induced a victim named 'Jane' to travel across state lines to New York for sexual abuse. The testimony of a witness, Juan Alessi, is cited as evidence confirming Maxwell's role in arranging and participating in Jane's travel.

This document is a page from jury instructions (Instruction No. 36) in a federal criminal case, filed on December 18, 2021. It details the 'overt act' element required to prove a conspiracy charge, listing specific allegations from the indictment against conspirators Maxwell and Epstein. The alleged overt acts, occurring between 1994 and 2002, involve the sexual abuse and exploitation of underage victims identified as Jane, Annie, Kate, and Carolyn across multiple locations including New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London.

This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.

This document is a page from a court summation, likely delivered by 'Ms. Moe', in a criminal case. The speaker outlines the stages of 'grooming' as explained by a Dr. Rocchio and alleges that the defendants, Maxwell and Epstein, used this exact 'playbook' to carefully select and target vulnerable girls from struggling, single-mother households, specifically naming Jane, Kate, Annie, and Carolyn.