Relationship Details

This document is a letter motion dated November 18, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government requests a ruling that the birth certificates of Minor Victims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 be deemed self-authenticating under Federal Rules of Evidence 902 and 902(4), thereby avoiding the need to call records custodians from various states (RI, MO, NY, CA, MA) to testify at trial. The defense had refused to stipulate to the authenticity of these records despite having no reason to doubt them.

This document is an email dated September 2, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney (SDNY) regarding the case US v. Maxwell. The email attaches the Government's proposed redactions to Ghislaine Maxwell's 'Second Ex Parte and In Camera Motion' for a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). The sender's name and recipient list are redacted.

This document is a subpoena issued on September 30, 2021, by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It commands Insured Aircraft Title Service, LLC to produce all records relating to aircraft with tail numbers N750A and N722JE dating from January 1, 2008, to the present. The appearance date for producing these records is set for November 29, 2021.

This document is a subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 24, 2021. It commands a redacted individual to appear in court on November 29, 2021, to testify in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell and to produce all records relating to their employment by Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a subpoena issued on July 28, 2021, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to AT&T. It commands AT&T to produce subscriber records for redacted phone numbers covering the period between 2000 and 2005 for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.

This document is an email from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Judge Nathan's chambers, dated July 2, 2020. It informs the court that Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested that morning in New Hampshire and that the government intends to seek her detention. The email also requests the setting of an initial conference date.

A subpoena issued by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to T-Mobile on July 28, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court commands T-Mobile to produce subscriber records for a specific (redacted) phone number covering the period between 2000 and 2005, with a return date of November 29, 2021.

This document is a subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 13, 2021. It commands a redacted individual to appear at 40 Foley Square on November 29, 2021, to testify in the criminal case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is signed by U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss.

This document is page 17 of a legal filing (dated September 16, 2020) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The text argues that the court order denying Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not eligible for interlocutory appeal. It addresses Maxwell's concern that her inability to use criminal discovery in civil litigation might lead to the unsealing of civil documents, potentially prejudicing her criminal trial, by stating she can raise these prejudice issues during the criminal trial itself.

This document is page 6 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standards required to hold a 'McDonough hearing' regarding juror nondisclosure, citing Second Circuit precedents that set a high bar for post-verdict inquiries to prevent juror harassment and 'fishing expeditions.' The court notes that the Defendant (Maxwell) argues against this standard but fails to provide an alternative.

This is a letter dated April 7, 2021, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter strongly objects to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's pretrial detention at the MDC, describing them as a form of "'pay-it-forward' punishment." It details a recent incident involving a pervasive sewage stench in her unit and argues that the government's portrayal of her confinement as superior is inaccurate and misses the point of her overly restrictive and unwarranted detention.

This legal document is a joint letter dated December 1, 2020, from the prosecution and defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter details a disagreement between the two parties regarding how to address the defendant's concerns about her conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The Government proposes a written response from MDC's legal counsel, while the defense insists on a personal court appearance by the warden, Heriberto Tellez.

This legal document is a letter dated July 7, 2020, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution proposes a briefing schedule for Maxwell's detention hearing following her arrest on July 2, 2020, and renews its request to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. The letter confirms the parties are available for a remote hearing on July 14, 2020.

This page contains a legal analysis from a court document (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the legal standards for 'variance' versus 'constructive amendment' of an indictment. It cites Second Circuit precedents (Banki, Rigas, Bastian, Salmonese, etc.) to establish that a defendant must prove substantial prejudice to reverse a conviction based on a variance claim. The text concludes by noting the Defendant is bringing a motion pursuant to Rule 33 to vacate judgment and grant a new trial.

This document is an Addendum Opinion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It analyzes English extradition law to support the argument that if Maxwell were to flee to the UK, she would almost certainly be denied bail there and her extradition back to the US would be a 'virtual foregone conclusion.' The opinion asserts that a waiver of extradition signed by Maxwell would be highly admissible and relevant in UK courts.

This is page 4 of a court filing (Document 106) from December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), citing precedents that a hearing should only be reopened if new information exists that was not known at the time of the original hearing. It introduces the discussion of the Defendant's renewed motion for bail.

This legal document is a letter dated April 1, 2022, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The government requests an extension, specifically an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, until April 22, 2022, for Counts Seven and Eight in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. This extension is sought to allow parties to continue researching and briefing pending post-trial motions, which the government argues is in the interests of justice.

This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated October 26, 2021. The Government accepts the Court's proposed remarks for jury selection but seeks clarification on when the specific names of prospective jurors will be revealed to the legal parties. The Government requests confirmation that juror names will be withheld from the parties until November 16, 2021, the start of oral voir dire, to maintain juror anonymity in open court.

This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 144) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It argues that 18 U.S.C. Section 3283 (extending statutes of limitations for child abuse offenses) does not apply to Maxwell's charges (Counts One through Four) regarding conduct in the 1990s. The text cites Supreme Court precedents (Shular v. United States, Bridges v. United States) to argue that statutory extensions only apply when the specific conduct (e.g., abuse or fraud) is an 'essential ingredient' of the charged offense.

This document is page 2 of an affidavit proposed by Ghislaine Maxwell in December 2020 as part of a bail application (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). In the document, Maxwell acknowledges her French citizenship but voluntarily and irrevocably waives her right to contest extradition from France to the United States should she be released on bail and subsequently flee. She explicitly consents to extradition under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition to assure the court she will not use French citizenship to evade US justice.

A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated February 1, 2021, regarding the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. The Government addresses a dispute over Maxwell's access to a laptop for reviewing over two million pages of discovery materials on weekends and holidays. While the Government does not object to the access, they defer to MDC management protocols, noting that Maxwell already receives more review time (13 hours/day, 7 days/week) than any other inmate.

A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 18, 2021, regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The Government is writing to oppose the addition of a specific jury instruction (Sand instruction 7-12) concerning the impeachment of witnesses by prior felony convictions, arguing it is not necessary in this context. The letter mentions a witness named 'Carolyn' whose prior convictions were elicited.

This document is page 18 of a defense motion (filed July 10, 2020) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing her decision to stay in the U.S. after Epstein's arrest, and argues that the government overstates the risk posed by the potential length of her sentence. The text cites various legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support the claim that a long potential sentence alone is insufficient grounds for detention.

This legal document, dated April 23, 2021, is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to the defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves as a formal disclosure that the government may call Dr. Lisa Rocchio, a clinical psychologist specializing in trauma, as an expert witness in Maxwell's upcoming trial. The document outlines Dr. Rocchio's extensive qualifications, including her role at Brown University's Alpert Medical School and the American Psychological Association, and her decades of experience treating victims of trauma and sexual abuse.

This document is a letter dated August 6, 2025, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves as a cover sheet for five enclosed submissions from various counsel (John Scarola, Sigrid McCawley, Bradley Edwards, and Neil S. Binder). The Government outlines the filing status of each submission, indicating whether it can be filed publicly without redactions, with redactions, or under seal.

This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court given the 'we review de novo' language) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations. The text analyzes 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors and cites case law such as Weingarten v. United States.

This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The letter, dated March 13, 2023, concerns the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, advising the court that the government intends to file its appeal brief by May 30, 2023, and also requests permission to file a supplemental appendix.

This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated February 1, 2021, regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government responds to Maxwell's request for expanded laptop access to review discovery materials on weekends, stating it has no objection but ultimately defers to the Metropolitan Detention Center's (MDC) policies. The letter details the extensive access Maxwell has already been granted, including a dedicated laptop and desktop computer, arguing she has ample opportunity to review the evidence.