Relationship Details

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between MS. MOE and THE COURT regarding the presentation of evidence, specifically the use of summary witnesses and exhibits under Rule 1006. MS. MOE seeks to publish exhibits efficiently for the jury, while the Court raises questions about the proposed method and its implications for witness involvement and evidence presentation.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense counsel, the Judge, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the scheduling of jury deliberations around the Christmas holiday. The defense worries the jury might rush to judgment to avoid returning in January, while Ms. Moe argues it is premature to decide but suggests deliberations should proceed if the defense rests by the week of the 20th.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding the timeline of a conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that the conspiracy was active throughout 2004 and 2005, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who visited Epstein's house continually during that period at ages 17 and 18. The discussion focuses on the legal burden of proof regarding withdrawal from a conspiracy.

This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a legal argument regarding the redaction of documents to protect the identity of a person referred to as 'Jane' from being cross-referenced with public records on PACER. The Judge instructs the attorneys (Ms. Moe and Mr. Rohrbach) to find a middle ground that protects witness privacy while acknowledging facts already in the public trial transcript before the jury enters.

This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) regarding a note received from the jury requesting office supplies, a specific transcript ('Matt's transcript'), and a definition of the legal term 'enticement'. Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the existing instruction stating that such terms have their 'ordinary everyday meanings'.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe regarding the interpretation of a jury note. The discussion focuses heavily on the grammatical placement of a comma in a question about liability for 'transportation of the return flight' versus a 'flight to New Mexico.'

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Moe and the Judge (The Court) regarding the proper procedure for impeaching a witness ('Jane') versus refreshing her recollection using prior statements or documents. Ms. Menninger is mentioned as the attorney questioning the witness.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe and others) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The Court agrees to allow the parties to resolve these redaction issues and an attorney-client privilege issue over the upcoming weekend.

This document is the final page (13 of 13) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Sternheim (Defense) noting rising COVID rates at the MDC facility, and the Court acknowledging availability (presumably of vaccines or testing) at the MDC before adjourning the session. Ms. Moe represents the government.

This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details an argument between an attorney identified as Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the use of a 'summary witness' under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. The Judge criticizes the prosecution's strategy, suggesting the witness is being used to present a 'mini closing argument' rather than a factual summary of complex records.

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding the relevance of photographs, prior testimony by Jane, and the submission of evidence binders for upcoming witnesses. The Court also provides a reminder to Ms. Comey about microphone usage.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger) and the Court regarding the admissibility of internet materials, specifically Wikipedia pages and tabloid articles, as evidence before a jury. Ms. Menninger argues she is providing materials in advance to expedite proceedings, while Ms. Moe objects to their nature.

This document is a transcript page (A-283) from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), documenting a voir dire hearing. The Judge questions 'Juror 50' regarding their lack of diligence in filling out a jury questionnaire; the juror admits to being 'distracted' and rushing ('float, fly through it') to finish. Prosecutor Ms. Moe confirms the government has no further questions at that stage.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring a legal argument between an attorney (Ms. Moe) and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs. The attorney argues the photos corroborate a witness's 'blind description' of a residence's interior. The Judge expresses skepticism due to the significant passage of time (15-20 years) and the fact that the photos may depict 'movable items' rather than permanent structures.

This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated December 10, 2021. The dialogue is between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and the Court regarding the logistics of presenting evidence; specifically, they agree that while electronic display is standard, sensitive documents containing identifying information of victims should be provided to jurors in paper binders to prevent them from being seen on public courtroom screens.

This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on a discussion about 'Government Exhibit 1B'. Ms. Moe requests the jury to access the exhibit and clarifies its location in binders, then proceeds to question Mrs. Hesse about it. A key point is Ms. Moe's caution about not reading names aloud from the exhibit, suggesting sensitive information.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and the Judge regarding the admissibility of photographs of a 'massage room' inside a residence. The Judge sustains an objection to the photos because they were taken over 20 years after the events described by a witness, and depict 'highly mobile items' that may not accurately reflect the room's state at the relevant time.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It records a dialogue between The Court and counsel Ms. Moe regarding the redaction of Exhibit 911, specifically debating whether to redact a painting over a mantel or a small photograph of an individual on a table. Ms. Moe agrees to unredact the painting and instead redact the photograph to protect potential privacy interests or witness identity.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues for the use of a summary witness to review exhibits without discussing investigative steps. The Judge ('The Court') rejects this characterization, stating that the proposed testimony does not fit Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and appears to be an improper 'mini closing argument' presented through a witness.

This document is the final page (29 of 29) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the end of the court session where the jury is dismissed, and attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters. The court adjourns until December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Defense Attorney Ms. Menninger, The Court, and Government Attorney Ms. Moe discussing the procedure for a witness to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. The Court and Defense agree that a simple letter or email from the witness's lawyer is insufficient to invoke these rights, and the Defense intends to ask for the subpoena to be enforced, requiring the witness to appear.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) recording the final moments of a hearing involving Ms. Maxwell. The Judge clarifies the fine guidelines ($20,000 to $200,000 per count), thanks the counsel, the victims who provided statements, and the government before adjourning the session.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe informs the court that the government anticipates resting its case 'this week.' The Judge grants a request to keep a document under seal to protect the identities of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms and discusses scheduling a charging conference, noting a conflict on the 13th, 14th, and 15th.

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.

This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe addresses the Court in the absence of the jury, first noting a safety caution regarding an open door to the jury room. She then argues against a defense letter filed earlier that morning, stating it repeats arguments regarding jury instructions that the Court had already rejected the previous day.