Relationship Details

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. An attorney questions McHugh about whether transactions in accounts managed by 'family offices' are typically handled by someone other than the account holder. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to the questions, but is overruled by the court, and the witness ultimately states the question is too general to answer.

This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters to discuss. The court is then formally adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2021.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Moe (likely prosecution), and Mr. Everdell (defense counsel) about scheduling the remainder of the trial. They discuss when the government's case will conclude, the defense's intention to call witnesses, and potential dates for a charge conference, specifically the evening of the 16th or Saturday the 18th.

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge regarding the admission of evidence, which is revealed to be photographs of costumes. The judge rules the evidence is relevant but reserves a final decision on its admission pending connecting testimony from a future witness.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between counsel (Ms. Moe) and the judge (The Court). Ms. Moe provides an update on the trial, stating they expect to rest their case within the week. The judge acknowledges this and then discusses a personal scheduling conflict, proposing alternative dates for the charging conference to both Ms. Moe and the defense counsel.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified attorney argues for the record that certain materials are not privileged, citing three reasons: no communication was required, potential disclosure to the government would waive privilege, and the intent to communicate to a third party negates privilege from the start. The judge acknowledges the argument but states that the court had already sustained an objection based on privilege.

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a cross-examination. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger debate with the Court about the proper handling of a witness's (Jane Cross's) lack of recollection, specifically concerning whether Epstein directed her seating. The core issue revolves around refreshing a witness's memory versus allowing the jury to consider the witness's current inability to recall as relevant evidence.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, detailing a discussion about a defendant's pretrial detention. The judge questions the prosecutor, Ms. Moe, about legal arguments raised by the defense attorney, Mr. Cohen, concerning the burden of proof for flight risk. Ms. Moe argues that the defendant has the burden to rebut the presumption of detention and has failed to do so, justifying the government's request to keep her detained.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records a conversation between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Ms. Sternheim) concerning the testimony of an upcoming witness. The judge acknowledges their points and adjourns the court until 8:45 a.m. on December 1, 2021.

This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, concerning jury deliberation scheduling. The judge relays a note from the jury requesting to end at 5:00 p.m. and, citing the omicron variant, instructs that deliberations will proceed every day, including weekends if necessary, until a verdict is reached. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe briefly comment, deferring to the court's decision.

This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and the deadline for a government brief. The judge expresses a preference to hold the conference on Friday, while the government's attorney suggests filing their brief by 8 p.m. that evening.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. Attorney Ms. Moe continues her direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse. During this segment, the court overrules an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and admits Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of witnesses and parties.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The central topic is a legal argument concerning the waiver of attorney-client privilege, specifically whether a client's disclosure to the government constitutes a waiver. The judge directs the attorneys to submit a formal brief on the waiver issue.

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.

This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh by an attorney, Mr. Everdell, regarding the typical functions of a 'family office' in managing the finances of wealthy individuals. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, repeatedly objects to the questions, which probe whether wealthy clients personally control their accounts or cede that control to the family office.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a brief exchange where the court confirms with attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that a defense question involves privacy issues, after which the court calls for a 30-minute recess.

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.

This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness, Maguire, who testifies that the FBI discovered boxes containing hard drives inside a residence. The witness confirms that these boxes were already sealed with evidence tape when found and that the FBI did not apply the tape.

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. Government counsel, Ms. Moe, raises a concern about the defense's plan to show documents to a witness on a screen that the government cannot see, making it difficult to follow. The judge (The Court) proposes a solution where the defense can use the screen as long as they verbally describe their actions, and offers the same allowance for the government to use paper documents if projection is not possible.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between the judge and counsel while the jury is not present. Counsel (Ms. Menninger) requests a juror seating chart, which the court agrees to provide. The judge praises the counsel for their professionalism, then reads a note from the jury stating they are leaving for the day at 5:30 and will resume deliberations in the morning.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a specific flight log entry (916) and a passenger named "Jane." Dr. Dubin states he cannot fully read the entry and does not recall the flight or meeting anyone named Jane on it.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between counsel and the judge during a break in a trial. After the jury is excused for a ten-minute break, counsel Ms. Moe raises two procedural matters with the Court: an ongoing anonymity issue and a Rule 408 issue concerning documents that were just received that morning.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to questioning by another attorney, Ms. Menninger, on the grounds of relevance and personal knowledge. The Court overrules the objection and admits Defendant's Exhibit J-15 into evidence.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and several attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach) regarding trial procedures. Key topics include clarifying testimony about Ms. Maxwell, the status of contacts with a witness named 'Jane', and confirming an agreement that victim-witnesses will not observe the trial until after both the prosecution and defense have rested their cases.

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding filed on December 10, 2020. In it, a speaker identified as Ms. Moe argues that the defendant is a flight risk due to significant financial resources. Ms. Moe cites bank records from January 2019 showing the defendant's annual income is between $200,000 and $500,000, net worth is over $10 million, and that the defendant is the grantor of a trust with over $4 million in assets.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (MS. MOE and MR. EVERDELL) regarding a note received from the jury. The judge directs the attorneys to review jury instruction number 21. Ms. Moe, representing the government, states that it is within the court's discretion to set the deliberation schedule and agrees that the jury should be advised to expect an extended session the next day.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca). The conversation focuses on scheduling the next witness, whose testimony is expected to extend past the lunch break, and the potential need to call a witness out of order. The judge agrees to the proposed flexibility before preparing to bring the jury into the courtroom.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They discuss a legal point concerning "Rule 408" and a previous motion to quash, after which Ms. Moe raises an issue of "brief anonymity," prompting the judge to call for a sidebar discussion. The transcript is part of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane.

This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym "Jane". The witness identifies Government Exhibit 12 as her birth certificate. Following a request from attorney Ms. Moe and with no objection from attorney Ms. Menninger, the judge permits the jury to view the sealed exhibit.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The judge calls for a mid-afternoon break during the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. After a recess, Mr. Everdell informs the court that he is not yet halfway through his questioning, indicating the examination will continue for some time.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, successfully moves to enter Government Exhibit 17 into evidence under seal to protect the identity of a witness, Matt, who is testifying under a pseudonym. After the jury is directed to view the exhibit, Ms. Moe begins her direct examination of the witness.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. An attorney questions Jane about incidents in New York involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and despite objections from another attorney, Jane confirms that she did tell the government about at least one such incident.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 10, 2020. The judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety restrictions, citing a national emergency and public safety, before turning to the arraignment on an S1 superseding indictment. The judge then begins to question counsel, Ms. Moe, about the specifics of this new indictment compared to the original.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Ms. Moe and the Court about a rebuttal witness. Ms. Moe argues that an exhibit, containing a picture and date of birth, was disclosed to the defense as soon as it was received and that the information is already known to the defendant. The Court considers the procedural aspects of calling the person as a rebuttal witness.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between legal counsel and the judge over the jury's deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger objects to extending the jury's hours, suggesting it could be perceived as pressure to rush, while Ms. Moe argues it is merely procedural scheduling. The judge resolves the issue by deciding to instruct the jury to be available to deliberate until 6 p.m. daily, starting the next day, if they have not yet reached a verdict.

This document is the final page of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the conclusion of a day's proceedings, where the judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters. The court is then adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 21, 2021.

This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, discusses the background facts regarding jury instructions for Mann Act counts in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It establishes that a conviction required proving an intent to violate a specific New York law (Penal Law § 130.55) and includes a court transcript clarifying this point, particularly in relation to the testimony of a witness named Kate.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between the judge, the government's attorney (Ms. Moe), and the defense attorney (Mr. Everdell). The attorneys provide updates on when their respective cases will proceed, and the judge proposes potential dates, specifically the 16th or 18th of the month, for the charge conference. The conversation aims to establish a clear timeline for the remainder of the trial.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a proceeding where several government exhibits are admitted into evidence. The judge gives a limiting instruction to the jury, stating the exhibits should only be used to consider a potential link between a "Ms. Maxwell" and other information, not for the truth of the matter asserted. At the request of Ms. Moe and with no objection from Mr. Pagliuca, the court agrees to seal the exhibits to protect witness identities.

This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion about a motion to preclude Government Exhibit 52. The judge denies the motion to preclude before trial, opting to hear witness testimony first. The conversation, primarily between the judge and attorney Ms. Moe, clarifies that a witness will authenticate the exhibit by testifying they saw a very similar, but not necessarily identical, book, without knowing how the specific exhibit came into government possession.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Maguire by counsel Ms. Moe. The witness describes a photograph, Government Exhibit 935, which shows a cabinet in a residence containing boxes of hard drives with evidence tape. A redacted version of the photograph, 935R, is subsequently admitted into evidence by the court without objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on financial transactions from October 19, 1999, specifically a sale and a transfer of approximately $18.3 million each, within an account controlled by Jeffrey Epstein. The line of questioning aims to establish that Epstein possessed significant wealth.

This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a day's proceedings, where the judge (THE COURT) confirms with counsel (Ms. Moe for the government and Ms. Sternheim) that there are no further matters. The court is then adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 21, 2021.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Court and various counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, announces they cannot complete a factual investigation on time and have decided not to call a witness named Brian. Other counsel then discuss the need for an updated witness list in light of this development.

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the court and several individuals about a new rule requiring N95 or KN95 masks in the courthouse. The court also addresses the handling of two notes requesting evidence, specifically "Parkinson's transcript" (to be provided) and "Matt's transcript" (which has already been sent).

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, before the judge regarding a potential conflict of interest with a juror. The juror works at the same financial institution as a witness, and Ms. Moe proposes questioning the juror, while Ms. Sternheim argues against it as unnecessary and potentially prejudicial.

This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, is delivering a closing argument, urging the jury to find Maxwell guilty of sexually exploiting and trafficking underage girls based on witness testimonies from individuals like Juan Alessi, David Mulligan, and Janice Swain. Following the argument, the judge addresses the jury, announcing a 20-30 minute lunch break.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe) regarding witness testimony. Ms. Menninger explains why the defense did not seek anonymity for a witness, while Ms. Moe argues they had other options. The Court notes that the defense has been aware since October of another individual, Kelly, who was implicated by a witness named Jane in "sexualized massages" and subsequently noticed as a defense witness.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named McHugh. The questioning focuses on Government Exhibit 506, which is identified as a signature card for a bank account ending in 4324. The questioner establishes a link between this account and the company Air Ghislaine Inc., while attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell interject to clarify details about the exhibit for the court.

This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It captures a legal argument between the judge ('THE COURT') and a government attorney ('MS. MOE') about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. The judge challenges the government's use of evidence from late 2004 and 2005, arguing it constitutes inadmissible 'post conspiracy' evidence because the conspiracy was legally dependent on a person named Carolyn being under the age of 18.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 26, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The judge tentatively schedules a conference for the parties on July 31st and grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to exclude the intervening time under the Speedy Trial Act. The judge justifies the exclusion as necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ensure effective legal representation for all parties.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details proceedings where the jury is not present, and the Court discusses a note received from the jury requesting office supplies (Post-Its, highlighters), a transcript of testimony by a person named "Matt," and a definition of the legal term "enticement." Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the original jury instructions stating that such terms have their "ordinary everyday meanings."

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the rules of witness sequestration, specifically concerning communications between two witnesses, Jane and Brian, who are implied to be family members. The judge questions the legality and propriety of sequestered witnesses being provided with trial transcripts, testing the boundaries of the sequestration order.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion after a witness, Dr. Dubin, is excused. Attorney Ms. Moe argues against questioning a witness based on their memory of media reports concerning flight records, suggesting the witness should be shown the actual records instead. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca begins to justify the relevance of his questioning to the judge by stating that the flight records were leaked to the media.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Maguire. The questioning, led by government counsel Ms. Moe, concerns binders found during a search, which are depicted in photographic exhibits. After conferring with opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe amends her request to admit evidence, withdrawing Exhibit 914 and successfully moving to admit Exhibits 925 and 925-R without objection.

This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a procedural argument between counsel. Government counsel Ms. Moe pushes for a quick, by-Friday deadline for a post-trial briefing on an issue concerning Juror 50's testimony. Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim argues for a two-week extension, citing the issue's importance and an upcoming trial she is starting on the 16th. The judge acknowledges the issue's significance but appears to favor a more expedited schedule.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Comey, Sternheim). The discussion centers on logistical delays as they wait for all jurors to pass through a security check. Ms. Sternheim asks for and receives confirmation from the judge that the overflow rooms for the jurors are located on the first and fifth floors.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), government counsel (Ms. Moe), and another counsel (Mr. Everdell) about scheduling a charging conference and determining when the defense will rest its case. The parties discuss potential dates, including December 18th, and the possibility of the defense resting on the upcoming Thursday, with the timing contingent on the length of witness cross-examinations.

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the explanatory commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, when offered a chance to respond, declines to make a verbal argument and instead rests on her previously submitted written briefing.

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing the government's argument for detaining a defendant pending trial. The government's representative, Ms. Moe, asserts the defendant is an extreme flight risk, citing her possession of three passports, large sums of money, and international connections. The court clarifies that the government's argument is based solely on flight risk and not on any danger the defendant poses to the community.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca. The main topic is the clarification of how Government Exhibit 52 and its subparts are to be offered into evidence, ensuring all parties agree on the process involving a stipulation for accuracy.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin. Attorney Ms. Moe asks a final question about medical conditions, which is objected to by attorney Mr. Pagliuca but allowed by the judge. After a brief answer, the testimony concludes, and the court excuses Dr. Dubin.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between two lawyers, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, and the judge regarding the testimony of a witness named Brian. The discussion focuses on scheduling Brian's testimony around his plan to fly home the next day and the scope of his questioning, specifically concerning information he may have received from another individual named Jane.

This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.

This document is a transcript from a court hearing on December 10, 2020, in which the judge questions an attorney, Ms. Moe, about the completeness of discovery materials provided by the F.B.I. in Florida. The judge emphasizes the need for proactive and critical efforts to ensure full disclosure, rather than simply accepting initial representations. The judge then directs Ms. Moe to present a proposed discovery schedule that she has already discussed with another party, Mr. Cohen.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger). The discussion centers on procedural issues concerning witnesses, including the legal authority for witness anonymity and the application of Rule 615, which governs the presence of witnesses in the courtroom. The attorneys agree to research and brief the court on the legal basis for their positions.

This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding where the judge, defense counsel (Mr. Cohen), and government counsel (Ms. Moe) discuss scheduling. The court sets a trial date for July 12, 2021. The government, through Ms. Moe, requests that the time between the hearing and the trial be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for discovery and motions.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and two counsels, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the scheduling and scope of testimony for a witness named Brian, who has a flight planned for the next day. The court directs the government to first inquire about what Brian learned from another individual, Jane, before he testifies.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the Court regarding potential witness coaching. The discussion centers on a conversation between two siblings about one's unpleasant experience testifying, prompting the judge to inquire about whether witnesses were properly instructed not to discuss their testimony with others. Ms. Moe also mentions speaking with the witness's (Jane's) attorney after her testimony.

This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this excerpt, the judge confirms with counsels Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim that all submissions have been filed and received. The judge then specifically asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to confirm what has been done to notify crime victims under the Justice For All Act, to which Ms. Moe responds that six impacted individuals have been notified through their counsel about the sentencing and their right to be heard.

This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge confirms with defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, that there are no objections to the supervised release conditions recommended by the Probation Department. The judge also clarifies that although Count Six involves mandatory restitution, the government's position is that none should be ordered because all victims have already been compensated.

This document is a court transcript from a criminal case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a sidebar or legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge regarding the admissibility of a line of questioning for a witness named Jane. The discussion focuses on whether questions about what Jane was told regarding her testimony's impact on a civil case are proper for impeaching the credibility of the prosecutors.

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. MOE) while the jury is not present. The discussion centers on a letter submitted by the defense overnight, which the judge just received. Ms. Moe argues that the letter merely repeats a legal argument about jury instructions that the defense made the previous day and which the Court had already considered and rejected.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about admitting evidence. An attorney, Ms. Moe, successfully argues for admitting Government Exhibit 925 under seal because it contains identifying information of third parties, while a redacted version, Exhibit 925-R, is admitted as a public exhibit for the jury to review. The transcript also briefly mentions that FBI personnel were responsible for placing labels on binders related to the case.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Moe regarding the procedural handling of an exhibit numbered '52'. The attorneys raise concerns about the exhibit's partial admission, relevance, and the jury's ability to evaluate its authenticity and weight without access to the full physical object.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger). The discussion centers on the procedure for redacting a witness's identifying information from the testimony, which the judge had previously sealed. They agree on a timeline for the government to propose redactions and for the attorneys to confer and file letters with the court by 10 PM that evening if any disagreements arise.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between the judge and various counsel. The defense, represented by Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Sternheim, estimates their case will take two to three days and suggests using an available Saturday to proceed. All parties, including Ms. Moe and the Court, agree to this proposal.

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing a discussion about discovery materials. A representative, Ms. Moe, informs the judge that physical files from a prior F.B.I. investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in Florida have been transferred to the New York F.B.I. office for scanning and review. The judge then inquires about the process for identifying and disclosing any other relevant information beyond these specific files.

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770. The judge begins by confirming that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has a working audio and video connection. The discussion then turns to a technical issue raised by Ms. Moe, who reports that the public call-in line is full, and the court expresses concern about an alternative listening arrangement involving a speakerphone.

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing the beginning of a remote legal proceeding. The judge (THE COURT) confirms the presence of counsel (MS. MOE), a court reporter, and a Pretrial Services Officer (Leah Harmon). The judge states the purpose of the hearing—an arraignment, scheduling conference, and bail hearing—and explains it is being conducted remotely under the authority of the CARES Act due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 22, 2022. It details a discussion between a judge, government attorney Ms. Moe, and another attorney, Mr. Everdell, about whether a criminal offense continued into November and December of 2004. The determination is critical for deciding if the 2004 sentencing manual applies, with the government arguing it does based on the trial testimony of a crime victim.

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe is seeking to admit three spiral-bound message books as evidence, arguing they have been properly authenticated and should be admitted despite a hearsay objection, citing that similar evidence was previously accepted in the trial.

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and a government attorney (MS. MOE). The discussion centers on the legal end date of a conspiracy, with the government arguing it extended through 2004 and into 2005. The judge expresses concern that the evidence cited by the government is 'post conspiracy' because it falls after the date in the indictment and, crucially, after a person named Carolyn turned 18, an event upon which the conspiracy's continuation was legally dependent.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, likely relating to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details a discussion regarding courthouse COVID-19 mask mandates (N95/KN95) and the handling of jury notes during deliberations. Specifically, the jury requested a transcript for 'Parkinson' (Court Exhibit 13) and had previously received supplies and a transcript for 'Matt'.

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, capturing a dialogue between a judge and Ms. Moe regarding a defendant's bail. The judge raises the issue of the defendant's motive for hiding—whether it was to evade authorities or for privacy from the press, especially given the public interest following Mr. Epstein's indictment. Ms. Moe argues that the motive is irrelevant; the crucial fact for the bail determination is that the defendant has demonstrated a clear ability and willingness to live in hiding.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, detailing a legal discussion between a judge and attorneys. The government, represented by Ms. Moe, argues that the 2004 Manual is applicable because the offense in question continued past November 1, 2004, citing trial testimony. The judge reframes the issue, focusing the argument on whether there is a preponderance of evidence of conspiratorial conduct within the specific two-month window of November and December 2004.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the timing of the judge's recent ruling on an application, the failure to enforce a subpoena in a timely manner, and the scope of materials produced as evidence. The attorneys offer to provide further documentation to create a clear factual record for the court's determination.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, regarding the expected testimony of a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe outlines that Jane will testify about being discouraged by her mother from disclosing family issues, especially after her mother reacted negatively to Jane speaking with a guidance counselor following her father's death. The opposing counsel, Ms. Menninger, states she has no objection to this testimony, after which the court takes a short break.

This document is a court transcript from a hearing on July 22, 2022, concerning sentencing guidelines. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, and the Court discuss the calculation of the total offense level, resulting in a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell, while agreeing with the calculation, formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups, an issue the Court has previously ruled on.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between the judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe, about admitting message books as evidence. The judge overrules an objection and indicates a preference for admitting the full books, which Ms. Moe agrees to. Following this exchange, the witness, Mrs. Hesse, is dismissed.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and attorneys Mr. Everdell, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger. The conversation centers on procedural issues for witnesses, specifically the legal basis for granting anonymity and confirming that defense witnesses will be subject to Rule 615, which requires them to remain outside the courtroom when not testifying.

This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a legal debate over the admissibility of a photograph. Defense counsel argues the photo is prejudicial, while Ms. Moe contends it is relevant; the judge ultimately overrules the objection. The discussion also references a witness named Kate, who testified earlier that day, and whose connection to the photograph is debated.

This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a prosecutor's closing argument, which urges the jury to convict Maxwell for sexually exploiting and trafficking underage girls, citing the testimony of witnesses like Juan Alessi, David Mulligan, and Janice Swain. Following the argument, the judge addresses the jury, announcing a short lunch break and reminding them not to discuss the case.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, regarding a juror seating chart. The judge then reads a note from the deliberating jury stating they are leaving at 5:30 PM. The judge announces the note will be marked as an exhibit and that the jury will be given instructions to resume deliberations in the morning.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge and various counsel. The parties address two notes from the jury: one stating a desire to end deliberations at 5 p.m., and another, marked as Court Exhibit 14, for which counsel proposes a response directing the jury to a specific instruction.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, and the judge. The conversation centers on setting deadlines for disclosing a witness list and filing a related application, with proposed dates of Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday being considered. Mr. Everdell highlights the urgency of the matter due to concerns among the witnesses involved.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the jury is not present. A lawyer, Ms. Moe, makes an application to the court, objecting to the defense counsel's summation, arguing that they referred to facts not in evidence. As a specific example, she states that Ms. Menninger read an email from someone named Kate that the court had previously ruled inadmissible.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge admonishes the attorneys to provide a specific rule of evidence when making objections, rather than using one-word grounds, to prevent improper communication with the jury or witnesses. After confirming no further business is expected for the evening, the court is adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 8, 2021.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the business records exception to the hearsay rule. An attorney, Ms. Moe, argues for the admissibility of a sequentially numbered book as evidence, contending that the law does not require records to be created at the precise moment of an event. The judge indicates they will research the relevant case law on the issue before making a ruling.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.

This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge. The discussion centers on redacted emails between individuals named Kate and Epstein, clarifying that while the emails were redacted, their content was introduced via testimony. Ms. Moe raises concerns about mischaracterizations and references to items not in evidence during closing arguments, and the Court assures her that the jury will receive proper instructions.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge confirms the jury's deliberation schedule, which includes holidays, and reads a note from the jury requesting the transcripts of expert witness Elizabeth Loftus. Counsel then raises an issue regarding the transcript of Cimberly Espinosa.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A judge (The Court) instructs the parties that jury deliberations will proceed every day of the week until a verdict is reached. The judge advises that any juror facing a hardship should notify Ms. Williams, and then asks Ms. Williams to bring the jurors out.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca debate with the judge whether 'message slips,' allegedly from a victim named Carolyn, can be admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The discussion also covers the authentication of these slips, which are described as often undated, unsigned, and cryptic.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a judge (The Court) discusses an attorney-client privilege issue with two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, which centers on a specific email. The judge instructs the attorneys to confer on the matter and sets a potential deadline of the following Wednesday for them to submit legal briefs if they cannot reach a resolution.

This document is page 6 (labeled SA-375) of a court transcript from a sentencing hearing (likely Ghislaine Maxwell's given the attorneys involved). The Judge ('The Court') is addressing the 'factual accuracy' of the presentence report (PSR). Ms. Moe, representing the government, states they have no further objections, while Mr. Everdell, representing the defense, questions the procedure for addressing their 'substantial factual objections' and whether every discrepancy needs to be resolved.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe before a judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit land registry records for the Kinnerton Street and Stanhope Mews residences to challenge a witness's testimony about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts in 1992-1993. In exchange for admitting these records, he suggests the prosecution should be allowed to admit deposition testimony from Ms. Maxwell on the same subject.

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 757, filed 2022-08-10). The discussion primarily revolves around the nature of closing arguments, the proper method for presenting evidence (specifically regarding a witness's personal experience), and an 'Exhibit 52 issue.' The Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca (representing the defense), and Ms. Comey participate in the dialogue, clarifying procedural matters related to the trial.

This document is a court transcript from a hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge finalizes objections, adopts the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) into the record, and begins to address the disputed sentencing guideline calculation. The judge notes the defense's position that the correct sentence is 51 to 63 months' imprisonment.

This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two counsels (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim). The judge outlines post-trial housekeeping matters, including the defendant's right to appeal within 14 days, and states the Court's intention to set the conspiracy end date as July 2004 in the final judgment. Ms. Moe acknowledges this, noting she will review the records and submit a letter if there is a discrepancy with the sentencing transcript.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the beginning of a cross-examination of Special Agent Maguire by attorney Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Maguire's participation in the execution of a search warrant at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence on July 6th and 7th, 2019. The search was part of an investigation being conducted by the New York FBI at the time.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. They are debating how to respond to a confusing note from the jury, as the placement of a comma in the jury's question drastically changes its meaning regarding responsibility for a flight to New Mexico. Ms. Moe argues that the note is too ambiguous to answer directly and suggests referring the jury back to their instructions.

This court transcript excerpt details a legal argument between counsel (MS. MOE) and the judge (THE COURT) about the end date of a criminal conspiracy. MS. MOE argues the conspiracy continued through the end of 2004, citing testimony from a witness named Carolyn who stated she was continually at Epstein's house during 2004 and 2005. The Court questions this line of reasoning, suggesting the actions described may constitute 'non-conspiracy conduct'.

A transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Moe argues for the admissibility of a bound, sequentially numbered book under the 'business records exception,' contending that witnesses do not need to testify to recording entries at the exact moment of occurrence. The Court (Judge) agrees to review the relevant case law during a break.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca explains that the defense is still finalizing its witness list because the government rested its case earlier than expected. Government attorney Ms. Moe counters that the defense was warned and is obligated by a prior court order to produce materials, specifically those governed by Rule 26 related to experts and witnesses, immediately.

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination involving Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe, and the Court concerning witness A. Farmer. The discussion centers on the admissibility of questions regarding a person's past statements to the FBI about wanting someone prosecuted in 2006, with the Court and counsel debating the relevance and scope of such questioning amidst numerous objections.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the judge and two counsels, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, clarifying that only specific parts ('subletters') of an evidence item ('52') are being moved into the record. After a brief recess, the judge confirms with counsel that they are ready to proceed and instructs that the jury be brought in.

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing a discussion between the judge, defense counsel (Mr. Cohen), and government counsel (Ms. Moe) about establishing a schedule for motions and discovery. Mr. Cohen clarifies the schedule by adding a previously omitted August 21 deadline for search warrant applications, which Ms. Moe confirms was included in a prior email to the judge's chambers. The parties are working to finalize deadlines for various legal filings in the case.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a lawyer, Ms. Moe, and the judge (The Court). Ms. Moe argues for using an agent to present exhibits to the jury to protect sensitive information, describing it as a 'streamlined testimony'. The Court expresses concern, noting that this role differs from a typical summary agent witness who testifies about their own investigation.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim about the schedule for ongoing jury deliberations, including over the New Year's holiday. The parties agree on the schedule and the specific language of the instructions to be given to the jury, ensuring jurors know how to report hardships and are not pressured to reach a verdict.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The discussion, involving attorneys Ms. Menninger, Ms. Moe, and the judge, centers on whether a witness's statement of "I don't remember" can be treated as inconsistent with a prior statement made to an agent concerning an individual named Epstein. The parties debate the proper legal procedure for questioning a witness about such a potential inconsistency.

This document is the final page of a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, filed as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge discusses rising COVID incidents at a facility and states they will look into availability of something at a location called MDC. After confirming neither the government (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) have anything further, the court is adjourned.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, about how to handle 18 binders of sealed exhibits for the jury and the witness stand. After agreeing on the procedure, the judge thanks the counsel for their work on anonymity issues and calls for a recess.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), and two attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe). They are discussing how to respond to a note from the jury, which requested a transcript of 'Matt's' testimony and a definition of 'enticement'. The judge decides to send the transcript and directs the jury to specific page and line numbers in the jury instructions for the definition.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Cohen agree to conduct the day's proceedings remotely due to the pandemic. The judge rules that the hearing cannot be delayed, emphasizing the interests of justice and the fact that the detained defendant is seeking release on bail.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. They are discussing a complex legal issue regarding an amended rule and a Second Circuit decision on the admissibility of civil litigation settlements in a criminal case. The judge expresses doubt that the rule amendment overrules the binding Second Circuit precedent and asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to research the issue.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Matt is being questioned about his past dating relationship with a woman named Jane and what she told him about her difficult home life as a child. The testimony is interrupted by a hearsay objection from an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, which is then argued by another attorney, Ms. Moe, before the judge makes a preliminary ruling.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. An attorney, Ms. Moe, is beginning her direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, regarding 'Government Exhibit 1B'. After a brief delay while the witness locates the exhibit in her binder, Ms. Moe prepares to ask questions, noting the need for discretion by not reading names from the document aloud.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and a government lawyer (Ms. Moe) about admitting evidence, specifically 'message books' and 'Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3'. The judge overrules an objection and agrees to admit the evidence, after which the witness, Mrs. Hesse, is dismissed from the stand.

This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion about a bequest from an estate undergoing bankruptcy. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the Court that this bequest, while disclosed on a financial affidavit, is a 'tenuous asset' that should not be considered for fines because the estate has other claims and the bequest will likely be contested. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, is present but declines to comment further on the matter.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a procedural discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Sternheim, Menninger). The conversation focuses on the next witness, identified as Matt, and addresses how potential evidentiary issues, such as the introduction of prior consistent statements, will be handled. An attorney also requests permission to ask a leading question under Rule 611(c).

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the dismissal of a jury after a unanimous verdict. The judge confirms the verdict with two individual jurors, Juror No. 119 and Juror No. 7, before formally dismissing the entire jury. The judge provides explicit instructions that while jurors are free to discuss their own experiences, they are forbidden from revealing the identities of other jurors or any information under seal, including the identities of anonymous witnesses.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge denies a request for a mistrial concerning evidence about phone numbers, stating the admission was for a limited purpose. The court then calls for a 20-minute luncheon recess, after which a technical difficulty with a non-working screen is reported.

This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on August 6, 2019. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Ms. Moe (representing the government), and Mr. Weinberg (representing the defense) to schedule future court dates. Key dates set include an appearance on October 28, a briefing deadline on February 24, 2020, and an oral argument on March 12, 2020.

This court transcript from December 10, 2021, captures a discussion where attorney Ms. Moe informs the court of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Moe explains that prospective Juror No. 93 is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness is an executive director, and that this issue has also been flagged for the defense.

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Menninger discuss the timeline for investigating a potential violation of a sequestration order, deciding not to expedite the matter due to a person named Brian's travel plans. Ms. Menninger also raises a new issue, highlighting a discrepancy between a recent letter from the government and information she received in a prior conferral.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In it, a witness is questioned about the meaning of fields in financial records belonging to Epstein, which span from January 1999 to December 2006. After confirming the scope of the records, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, concludes his questioning.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between the court and an attorney, Ms. Moe, during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. The discussion focuses on a hearsay objection and the court's explanation of the foundational requirements needed to admit exhibits 1B, 3P, and 3X under the business records exception.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Mr. Pagliuca). The attorneys and the judge debate the proper way to present documentary evidence to the jury, specifically whether it can be done without a witness on the stand. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the government's proposed method, and the judge expresses concern that it would be improper.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, who is asked if she has seen pictures of someone named Sophie since September 2019. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects, and another attorney, Ms. Menninger, provides 'Lack of evidence' as the grounds, which the judge questions.

This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on April 1, 2021. During the hearing, the defendant, after confirming consultation with their attorney, waives the public reading of the indictment and pleads not guilty. The court accepts the plea and then transitions to a scheduling conference, instructing the government's representative, Ms. Moe, to provide a status update on discovery.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a moment during a trial where the judge calls for a mid-afternoon break. The cross-examination of witness Rodgers by defense attorney Everdell is paused, and the jury and witness are dismissed. The attorneys for the government (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) confirm they have no immediate matters to discuss, with Mr. Everdell noting he is less than halfway through his questioning.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence. The key points are the government's intent to use photographs of a massage room rather than the physical table, and Mr. Everdell's argument that costumes found in a 2019 search are irrelevant as they were discovered 15 years after the alleged conspiracy.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of photographs. The core issue is the lack of a proper foundation for the evidence, as the expected witness, Jane, did not testify, and there is a significant time gap of approximately 25 years between the events she allegedly witnessed (c. 1994-1995) and a 2019 search.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning confirms that a person named Carolyn left a message for a Mr. Epstein on March 11, 2003, and directs the witness and jury to review Government Exhibits 4B and 3E.

This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020. In it, a government prosecutor, Ms. Moe of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, argues that the government's presentation is based on undisputed facts from a grand jury indictment, not media 'spin'. She references the indictment's 'chilling' allegations, including the trafficking of underage girls and the defendant's undisputed actions of living in hiding.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and attorneys about the schedule for jury deliberations. The judge sets a default end time of 6 p.m., with an exception for jurors who report a hardship to a Ms. Williams. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to the judge's phrasing for the jury instructions, fearing it could pressure the jury, but the judge overrules the objection, citing prior use of the same language without issue.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding a question from the jury. The parties are trying to decide how to clarify an instruction related to a 'multi-leg trip' and 'Count Four', with Mr. Everdell suggesting a specific text and Ms. Moe arguing it is not what the jury is asking about.

This court transcript page, filed on August 22, 2022, documents a hearing for Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests she be designated to the women's prison facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program; the court agrees to recommend this to the Bureau of Prisons. Subsequently, the government's counsel, Ms. Moe, moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments, a motion which the court grants.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between Ms. Moe and the Court over the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Amanda. Ms. Moe presents the testimony as corroborative evidence, but the Court questions its validity, noting it could violate a prior order and that its relevance hinges on the witness's age. The Court ultimately sustains an objection, referencing testimony from the previous day that the witness believed she was 17.

This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe argues that a conspiracy continued through 2004 and into 2005, citing as evidence a message from a person named Carolyn in November 2004 attempting to schedule an appointment at 'the house'. The judge questions whether this evidence constitutes post-conspiracy or post-indictment conduct rather than ongoing conspiratorial acts.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where a speaker, Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defendant is a flight risk. Ms. Moe presents evidence of the defendant's significant wealth, citing bank records from January 2019 that show an annual income between $200,000 and $500,000, a net worth over $10 million, and a trust account with over $4 million in assets.

This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021, documents a pretrial discussion. The judge rules on the process for determining the admissibility of testimony and orders the government to make a document exhibit available for defense inspection, after which the attorneys confirm the inspection already occurred on November 1st and that the original exhibit will be present at trial.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms to the judge that an item was made available for inspection by the defense, resolving that issue. The judge then directs the conversation to the next matter: the admissibility of co-conspirator statements for the upcoming trial.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding jury confusion over 'Count Four'. The jury is questioning the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge that must be considered under New York law, and the counsel debate whether simply referring the jury to the existing instructions is sufficient to resolve the issue.

This document is a page from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the end of a day's session where counsel for both sides, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, confirm they have no further business, leading the Court to adjourn the proceedings until 8:45 a.m. on December 10, 2021.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion between attorney Ms. Moe and the judge regarding a conversation between two siblings, one of whom was a witness named Jane. Ms. Moe explains that one sibling described her court testimony as an 'unpleasant experience' to the other. The judge inquires about whether the government had instructed witnesses not to discuss testimony, and Ms. Moe recounts her own conversation with Jane's attorney on the matter.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument by an attorney, Ms. Moe, regarding the authentication of an exhibit related to 'Maxwell and Epstein'. The Court sustains an objection made by Ms. Comey, instructs the jury to disregard certain testimony, and reserves its final decision on admitting the exhibit until after hearing from a witness referred to as 'employee one'.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe, and the presiding judge. The attorneys debate a proposed question for a witness, Jane, regarding her potential financial stake in the case's outcome. The judge overrules the objection, deciding to allow the question but with a limiting instruction to the jury to ensure they understand the witness is testifying to her own understanding, not providing legal instruction.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, and the presiding judge. The discussion revolves around the defense's potential desire to call plaintiffs' attorneys as witnesses, the implications for attorney-client privilege, and a disclosure made in an email. The judge encourages the parties to reach a stipulation regarding what information was relayed to the government to resolve the issue.

This court transcript details a sidebar conversation from a trial on August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger argues she is permitted to question a witness about Jeffrey Epstein to impeach his credibility, citing federal evidence rules. Opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, objects, calling it an improper argument, leading the judge to limit Ms. Menninger to three questions on the topic.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument over the admissibility of hearsay testimony during the direct examination of witness A. Farmer. Attorneys debate with the judge how to question the witness about why she was willing to see Jeffrey Epstein again, despite her discomfort, focusing on a conversation with her mother about Maxwell's presence. The discussion revolves around whether this testimony is offered for the truth of the matter asserted or to explain the witness's state of mind.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe is requesting to present exhibits to the jury in a streamlined fashion without a witness, arguing it would be more efficient. The judge questions this unusual procedure, suggesting it could be handled during closing arguments and noting its difference from other methods.

This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and counsel while a jury is deliberating. The court reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of David Rodgers and then discusses the potential of extending deliberations into the next day. Counsel Ms. Sternheim advises that the jury should be allowed to set its own schedule without pressure from the court.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a discussion between the Judge (The Court), Defense (Mr. Everdell), and Prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding a response to a jury note during deliberations. The court is preparing to send the jury a transcript of testimony from a witness named 'Matt' and is clarifying jury instructions regarding the definition of 'enticement' found on pages 21 and 33 of the charge.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the correct procedure for questioning a witness, Jane, who repeatedly claims she cannot remember her prior statements to the government. The judge advises the attorneys on how to phrase questions to avoid improperly introducing prior statements when the witness has no recollection.

This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the Court's preference for when victims should speak, and the Court outlines the sequence as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell. After confirming no objections from counsel, the Court calls for a luncheon recess until 1:00.

This document is a short court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the end of a day's proceedings where the judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters and adjourns the court until 9:00 a.m. on December 29, 2021.

This is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between counsel (Ms. Moe) and the judge. Ms. Moe successfully argues for the admission of evidence related to a person's date of birth to prove they were not underage during the 2000s, which the judge deems relevant for rebuttal. The judge then proposes a sidebar with the parties to discuss jury matters.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge (The Court) regarding the admission of three spiral-bound message books as evidence. Ms. Moe argues that the books have been authenticated by a witness and are admissible despite hearsay objections, citing precedent from similar evidence already admitted in the trial.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge about the government's plan to present documents to the jury without a testifying witness. The Court expresses concerns about the method, and Mr. Pagliuca formally objects to the proposed process.

This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Moe, regarding a witness's testimony. The discussion centers on clarifying the witness's past residences in Palm Beach as a teenager, specifically distinguishing between a 'first address' identified as a pool house and a 'second address'.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents the direct examination of a witness named Maguire. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, introduces a photograph of a blue spiral staircase (Government Exhibit 915-R), which the witness identifies and confirms is an accurate depiction. The exhibit is then admitted into evidence by the court without objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two lawyers (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) about a jury's confusion. The jury appears to be mistaking New Mexico law for New York law regarding Count Four. Despite Mr. Everdell's concerns about ongoing confusion, the judge decides to simply refer the jury back to the original charge, which Ms. Moe argues clearly specifies a New York statute.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the admissibility of 'Government Exhibit 52,' with the judge deciding not to preclude it before trial. They clarify the nature of anticipated testimony from a witness, Ms. Comey, who is expected to authenticate the exhibit by describing its similarity to a book she has seen, even though she is unaware of how the government obtained it.

This document is a page from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a court session where the judge confirms with the government counsel (Ms. Moe) and defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues. The court is then adjourned, with the next session scheduled for Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the prosecution and defense. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically the confirmation that trial exhibits have been made public through the U.S. Attorney's Office and the logistics of redacting sensitive information from closing argument slides in a timely manner. Counsel clarifies which version of a specific exhibit, AF-1R, is the public version.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely from the defense, argues against admitting costumes as evidence, claiming they are irrelevant and would prejudice the jury. In response, Ms. Moe, for the prosecution, argues the evidence is highly relevant to counter the defense's repeated claims that Epstein had no interest in underage girls, citing his possession of "schoolgirl outfits" near his massage room.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) and the judge. The discussion centers on the afternoon's witness schedule, including Kimberly Meder and Stephen Flatley, and a request by Ms. Menninger to address issues with evidentiary material that was disclosed very late the previous night. The judge and attorneys work to clarify the order of proceedings for the remainder of the session.

This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Everdell. The primary topic is the procedure for addressing the defense's factual objections to a presentence report (PSR). The judge indicates a readiness to review each objection individually to ensure the report's accuracy before sentencing.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge clarifies a procedural matter with counsel, Ms. Moe, regarding which parts of evidence marked as 'identification 52' are being entered into the record. After a brief recess, the judge confirms with both Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger that they are ready to proceed and directs that the jury be brought in.

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing the conclusion of a legal proceeding. The judge clarifies the guideline fine range is 20 to 200,000 per count, which is confirmed by counsel. Before adjourning, the judge thanks the victims, their counsel, counsel for Ms. Maxwell, and counsel for the government.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Moe, who is testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane'. Attorney Ms. Menninger questions the witness about an application she made in the summer of 1996, focusing on a new address in the Bear Lake Estates gated community. The questioning relates to Defendant's Exhibit J-5, which the court admits into evidence under seal to protect the witness's identity.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a court session where the judge confirms with counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) that there are no further issues to discuss. The judge then adjourns the proceedings to Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 8:45 a.m.

This court transcript excerpt from August 10, 2022, captures the transition between witnesses in a trial. After Agent Maguire is excused, the court and counsel briefly discuss whether to begin with a new witness, Kimberly Meder, due to the late hour. They decide to proceed, and Ms. Meder is called by the government, sworn in, and provides her name for the record.

This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, clarifies for the record that discovery materials related to an individual named Jane contain very few names (five or fewer), not hundreds. The court then questions another attorney, Ms. Menninger, about the contact information for a witness, who confirms the witness was personally served and given the necessary contact details.

This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a judge addressing a note from the jury. The jury requests transcripts for five witnesses and seeks clarification on their deliberation schedule, specifically regarding holidays. The judge also indicates an intent to hold a sealed sidebar conference with counsel to discuss a private matter concerning a juror's scheduling conflict.

This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. McHugh, about the typical assets of high-net-worth individuals, such as multiple bank accounts, brokerage accounts, homes, and planes. An attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to a question about planes, and the court sustains the objection.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. In the transcript, a speaker identified as Ms. Moe explains to the judge ('your Honor') that files from a previous F.B.I. investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in Florida have been physically shipped to the New York F.B.I. office. These files have been scanned and imaged to allow for a comprehensive review, and the court is inquiring about the process for disclosing any additional information that may be found.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the admission of certain records on hearsay grounds, arguing the witness only has personal knowledge of the signatures. In response, the judge decides to address the objection after giving the jury a 15-minute morning break.

This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The judge rules to set a firm trial date for July 12, 2021, justifying the delay as necessary for discovery and preparation, and finding it serves the ends of justice. The court then prepares to hear arguments regarding the government's motion for the defendant's detention.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. Jane testifies about the emotional significance of compensation she received for past abuse, stating she wishes she never received the money and that it was a means to cover expenses and attempt to move on. She confirms she has no financial stake in the outcome of the current trial and expresses hope for closure.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. The judge discusses a sustained objection and proper redactions with counsel before the court recesses. After reconvening, the judge reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of an individual named Larry Visoski.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022. After a witness named Jane is excused, the court calls for a break. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then raises a procedural issue, requesting a proffer from the government regarding the testimony of the next witness, Matt, to ensure it complies with evidence rules and avoids improper statements.

This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation on August 10, 2022. The judge discusses with counsel the procedures for alternate jurors, deciding they can be on-call due to the pandemic, rather than remaining at the courthouse. The judge also confirms the specific numbers of the five alternate jurors with the agreement of all counsel present.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about the jury deliberation schedule. The judge sets a default end time of 6 p.m., while allowing for hardship exceptions, and overrules an objection from an attorney, Ms. Menninger, who was concerned that certain language might pressure the jury.

This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion where a new piece of evidence, referred to as 'the notes', is introduced. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, states she has not had time to review them, so the Court calls for a 30-minute recess at 12:55 PM. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, outlines a plan to provide a stamped and emailed copy of the notes to the judge's chambers during the break.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Special Agent Maguire by counsel Ms. Moe. Maguire testifies about the procedure of a search at a residence, which involved labeling approximately 40 rooms and taking photographs. The agent then identifies Government Exhibits 933, 910, and 911-R as photographs of the residence's entryway and main foyer.

This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, detailing the conclusion of a hearing. The judge rules that the government has proven the defendant is a flight risk and orders the defendant to be detained pending trial. The judge then confirms with both defense counsel (Mr. Cohen) and government counsel (Ms. Moe) that there are no further issues before adjourning the court.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and an attorney, Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on the admissibility of evidence for impeaching a witness named Jane, debating whether the issue falls under Rule 408, and emphasizing the necessity of the witness's personal knowledge. The judge also elaborates on the binding nature of Second Circuit precedent on district courts unless overturned by a higher authority.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe argues for the admissibility of names and phone numbers from recorded messages, not for their truth, but as evidence that certain individuals contacted a specific house, consistent with prior victim testimony. She contends this evidence qualifies as a business record.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Menninger, and the judge regarding the wording of jury instructions about the deliberation schedule. Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the proposed language might pressure the jury, but the Court overrules her objection, emphasizing its discretion and the need for consistent, neutral language.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger. The parties are debating the timing and method for resolving two or three outstanding issues, weighing the efficiency of handling them immediately against the preference for a sidebar and the dependency of one issue on upcoming witness testimony. The conversation occurs while they are waiting for the jurors to be brought in.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two counsels, Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the correct method for offering 'Government Exhibit 52' and its excerpts into evidence. The counsels clarify whether the entire document should be offered foundationally with excerpts for the jury, ultimately agreeing on the process.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The questioning focuses on personal information from a summer camp application (height, weight, grade) and her attendance at Interlochen the following year. The transcript also records procedural matters, including an attorney's request for the jury to view a sealed piece of evidence, Defendant's Exhibit J-4.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a judge reads a note from the jury. The jury requests transcripts for five individuals who testified—Shawn, Cimberly Espinosa, Amanda Young, Jason Richards, and one with an unreadable name—and asks for clarification on whether they must continue deliberations through the holidays of 12/31 and 1/1. The judge also prepares to discuss a private juror conflict with counsel at a sealed sidebar conference.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A judge instructs the involved parties, including Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, that jury deliberations will continue daily until a verdict is reached and asks them to remain available. The judge also provides a protocol for addressing scheduling hardships through a Ms. Williams.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Jane by a lawyer, Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on whether Jane's cooperation with the government was motivated by potential financial gain from civil litigation against the Estate of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as well as a victims' compensation fund. The transcript also captures procedural discussions between the lawyers and the Court regarding the timing of witnesses.

This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the judge addresses a letter from the defense. Ms. Moe, likely a prosecutor, points out that the letter rehashes an argument the Court already rejected the previous day. The judge affirms this, stating that the legal instructions given to the jury were correct and remain so, thereby dismissing the defense's implicit challenge.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a settlement agreement. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that the document is relevant to show the amount of money a witness named Jane received, while the opposing counsel and the Court discuss whether the document's complex legal language would be unfairly prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The Court compares the document's complexity to other legal agreements, like cooperation agreements, that are regularly shown to juries.

This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The judge (THE COURT) informs a party of their appellate rights, discusses issuing a post-trial order, and establishes July 2004 as the official end date for a criminal conspiracy. Counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, acknowledge the court's statements and indicate they have no objections, though Ms. Moe reserves the right to submit a letter if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.

This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing the end of a witness's testimony and a subsequent procedural discussion. A witness denies that reading the case summary, which involves sexual crimes, made them reflect on their own past sexual abuse. After the witness is excused, the judge (THE COURT) discusses the schedule for post-trial briefings with the government's counsel, Ms. Moe.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of 'Exhibit J-40'. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, moves to admit the document, which concerns a prior civil settlement involving the witness, Jane, under seal. Opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, objects on legal grounds, arguing the information is already on record. The judge postpones the discussion until after a lunch break.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a sidebar discussion between attorneys and the judge. The attorneys are debating how to question a witness about her reasons for returning to visit Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico, with the court ruling that testimony about what the witness's mother said is inadmissible hearsay. An attorney then proposes an alternative line of questioning focused on the witness's own feelings to circumvent the objection.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a brief conversation where the judge confirms with two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Menninger, that there are no preliminary issues to discuss before bringing in the jury. The proceeding involves the direct examination of a witness named Jane.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An unnamed speaker outlines three reasons why certain materials should not be considered privileged, including that they were intended for a third party or would lose privilege if shown to the government. The judge acknowledges the argument but notes a prior ruling, after which counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and other lawyers (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Pagliuca) indicate they have no further points on the matter at that time.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The defense objects to the handling of 'exhibit 309,' a photograph, claiming it impairs their ability to cross-examine a witness. Ms. Moe counters that the defense was already aware of the photo and its identification by a witness named Kate from an interview conducted in September, and thus had the opportunity to address it.

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the court. Mr. Everdell argues that a bequest made to an estate currently in bankruptcy should not be considered a firm asset for the purpose of calculating fines, as the estate has outstanding victims' claims and the bequest itself is likely to be contested. He states it was disclosed on a financial affidavit out of an abundance of caution and good faith.

This court transcript excerpt from June 29, 2023, details a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge (The Court) regarding the end date of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe contends that trial evidence proves the conspiracy continued through late 2004 and into 2005, while the Court questions whether this constitutes post-conspiracy conduct, as it extends beyond the 18th birthday of a person named Carolyn, whose minority status was apparently central to the charge.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the start of a court session. The judge addresses the jury, announces the continuation of Ms. Menninger's cross-examination of a witness using the pseudonym "Jane," and reminds the witness she is under oath. The judge also instructs the courtroom sketch artists not to draw an exact likeness of the witness, indicating measures are being taken to protect her identity.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse by attorney Ms. Moe. During the examination, Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are admitted into evidence under seal by the judge, despite an objection from attorney Mr. Pagliuca being overruled.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. The conversation centers on resolving an attorney-client privilege issue stemming from an email. The judge instructs the attorneys to confer and, if they cannot reach an agreement, sets a deadline of the following Wednesday for the matter to be fully briefed and discussed again.