Relationship Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion regarding the handling of physical evidence binders and paper copies of exhibits. Prosecutor Ms. Moe requests that the government be allowed to review binders prepared by defense attorney Mr. Everdell before they are presented to the jury or witnesses.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell, and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding trial scheduling, specifically when the government's case will conclude and when the defense will begin presenting their case. The prosecution requests Rule 26.2 disclosures at the conclusion of their case.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the trial schedule, specifically when the government will rest its case and when the defense will begin. Ms. Moe also requests that the defense produce Rule 26.2 disclosures immediately upon the conclusion of the government's case.

This is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a debate between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding how to answer a jury note concerning 'Count Four' and a 'second element' related to specific flights or trips. The Judge leans toward following the government's suggestion to refer the jury back to the original instructions rather than providing new specifics.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named Sud, during which defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces 'Exhibit RS-1' into evidence. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) agrees to the admission provided the document is kept under seal due to the presence of personally identifying information of third parties. The Court admits the exhibit under seal but allows the jury to view it immediately.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the legal definition of the word 'entice' for jury instructions. The Judge cites specific case law (*Almonte*, *Dupigny*, and *Broxmeyer*) to define the term as 'to attract, induce, or lure using hope or desire.'

This page is a transcript from the trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of Special Agent Maguire by prosecutor Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on identifying a 'massage room' and a wooden shelving unit depicted in Government Exhibits 917-R and 928-R. Both exhibits are received into evidence without objection from defense attorney Mr. Everdell.

A page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that sentencing guidelines regarding 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' should not apply to his client, noting she has not been accused of a crime in over 18 years. The prosecutor, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally, resting on previous written briefings.

This document is a transcript page from a sidebar conference in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court confirms that the government has rested its case and verifies that the defense still intends to present a case. The judge outlines instructions for the jury and schedules a hearing for a Rule 29 motion (Motion for Judgment of Acquittal) to take place immediately after the jury is excused.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of the word 'entice,' citing cases such as Almonte, Dupigny, and Broxmeyer. Mr. Everdell notes a technical difficulty with internet access during the proceeding.

A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.