Relationship Details

This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 649) from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on March 15, 2022, in the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text argues that 'Juror 50' demonstrated bias by lying on a questionnaire about his own history of sexual abuse, which the defense argues closely paralleled the abuse described by victims at the trial. The filing highlights that the juror was abused by a familiar person (his stepbrother), mirroring the allegations against Epstein and Maxwell, and argues he would have been struck for cause had he been honest.

This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, discusses the victim impact statements of seven women in a case involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. It argues their standing as statutory victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), noting that only Annie Farmer and Virginia Giuffre were minors during the relevant period of the charged offenses. The document contends that allegations of abuse alone are insufficient and must be directly linked to the federal offense conduct, which requires the victim to have been a minor.

This legal document argues for Ms. Maxwell to be released on restrictive bail. Her defense contends that the government's case lacks corroborating evidence, relies on old testimony, and that her oppressive confinement conditions at the MDC, including a COVID-19 outbreak, are unjust and impede her ability to prepare her defense. The filing also asserts she is not a flight risk, citing expert opinions on extradition from the UK and France.

This legal document argues that the defense was hindered by the unavailability of contemporaneous phone and property records for Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and accusers. It cites two examples: the inability to challenge Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell called her to set up appointments, and the inability to rebut accuser Jane's testimony about the timing of her sexual abuse at Epstein's New York townhouse, which she described in detail.

This document is a legal conclusion affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction for Ms. Maxwell on June 29, 2022. It details five key holdings, including that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with USAO-SDFL did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution by USAOSDNY, and that the District Court's sentence for Maxwell was procedurally reasonable. The document emphasizes the gravity of Maxwell's offense and the significant harm she inflicted.

This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to vacate her convictions and grant a new trial. The argument is that the jury improperly convicted her on charges based on testimony about events in New Mexico, which was outside the scope of the original indictment premised on violations of New York law. The filing contends this constituted a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment, making the conviction invalid.

This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, describes a question posed to Ms. Maxwell regarding her awareness of "sex toys" or "devices" at Epstein's Palm Beach house. The document argues that the question was improper—being compound, vague, and lacking foundation—which led to an objection and Ms. Maxwell's predictable response, "No, not that I recall."

This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).

This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on January 25, 2021, arguing for the dismissal of her indictment. The defense claims a Sixth Amendment violation due to the systematic underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors in the selection pool and alleges the government rushed her arrest for publicity reasons to coincide with the anniversary of the Epstein indictment.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell was not a flight risk prior to her arrest. It asserts that she intentionally moved to New Hampshire to be within driving distance of New York prosecutors and that her defense counsel was in regular communication with the government for months. The filing aims to counter the government's portrayal of her as a fugitive who was hiding and changing locations.

This document details an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on investigative measures taken by police officers, including subpoenas and a search warrant at Epstein's residence. It describes the involvement of several redacted individuals, one of whom was introduced to Epstein, performed a massage, and recruited other girls at his request, later cooperating with police for a lesser charge. The document also clarifies Ms. Maxwell's non-involvement with purported victims and her absence during the search warrant execution, with seized materials being turned over to the United States Attorney.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's conviction on Count Four was likely improper. The argument centers on a note from the jury, which suggests they based the conviction on sexual abuse that victim 'Jane' experienced in New Mexico, facilitated by Maxwell. However, the charge required the intended sexual activity to be a violation of New York Penal Law, a condition the New Mexico events did not satisfy.

This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, details a judge's ruling on objections made by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge overrules objections regarding characterizations of the offense and Maxwell's responsibility for sexualized massages, citing trial evidence that contradicts her claims. The ruling concludes that evidence established Ms. Maxwell's recruitment of a person named Virginia, which initiated a broader recruitment scheme.

This document is page 10 of a legal defense filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on Feb 4, 2021. The text argues that the indictment fails to establish a conspiracy charge regarding 'Accuser-3' because there is no evidence of interstate or foreign travel (a requirement for federal jurisdiction), noting that the alleged incidents took place in England. Additionally, the defense argues that any charges related to Accuser-3 are time-barred by the statute of limitations.

This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically page 5 of 6 from Document 548 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 15, 2021. The Court denies the Defense's request for a witness to testify under a pseudonym, arguing that the witness does not qualify as a victim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because her anticipated testimony is that she was not a target of sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court distinguishes this situation from a prior ruling where pseudonyms were allowed to protect the identities of other, actual victims.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct with 'Accuser-3' in England falls outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. It cites the case 'United States v. Hsia' as precedent for distinguishing between a core conspiracy and separate acts of concealment or cover-up. The document contends that the object of the conspiracy was to cause individuals to travel for unlawful acts with Epstein, and Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 did not further this specific goal.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a jury note submitted during Ms. Maxwell's trial was ambiguous. The defense claimed the note referred to a specific 1997 flight to New Mexico, but this document contends the jury could have been referencing other flights or asking a different question entirely. The document concludes that the defendant's interpretation is 'mere conjecture' and supports the court's decision to reject the defense's arguments on this point.

This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument against introducing evidence of alleged false statements (perjury counts) in Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence would substantially prejudice the jury by introducing unrelated allegations, risk the disqualification of her counsel, and create a distracting side-show, thereby jeopardizing her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The arguments heavily rely on the Court's reasoning from a prior severance ruling.

This legal document details the allegedly poor and dehumanizing conditions of Ms. Maxwell's pre-trial detention. It argues that inadequate nutrition, sleep deprivation, psychological threats, and significant technical difficulties with discovery materials severely weakened her and thwarted her ability to prepare her defense. The document suggests these conditions were intentionally imposed to satisfy various government and legal parties following Epstein's death.

This legal document is a filing on behalf of the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the Court should deny the government's motion to compel her to provide pre-trial notice of certain evidence. The defense asserts there is no legal authority for this demand and that the relevant rules, specifically Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), place the burden of providing such notice on the prosecution, not the defendant. The document aims to prevent the defendant from having to disclose her evidence strategy concerning her alleged absence when Epstein committed abuse.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is addressing defense arguments for release, comparing her situation to United States v. Friedman, but distinguishing it because Maxwell allegedly did not provide her whereabouts to the government despite staying in contact. The judge argues that Maxwell may not have realized the severity of the charges or the likelihood of prosecution until her actual indictment.

This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Statement of Facts) dated January 25, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment should be dismissed due to Sixth Amendment violations. The defense contends that while the alleged crimes occurred at Epstein's Manhattan residence, the government improperly used a grand jury from White Plains due to COVID-19 protocols, deviating from established practice.

This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Statement of Facts) dated January 25, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment should be dismissed due to Sixth Amendment violations. The defense contends that while the alleged crimes occurred at Epstein's Manhattan residence, the government improperly used a grand jury from White Plains due to COVID-19 protocols, deviating from established practice.