Ms. Moe speaks on behalf of 'The government'.
MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
Court addresses Ms. Moe to ask about 'the government's' position.
Ms. Moe speaks on behalf of the government/prosecution regarding 'their [defense] witnesses'.
Ms. Moe represents the government's side, specifically regarding the motion for detention.
Moe responds to the Judge regarding the 'government's position'.
Ms. Moe speaks on behalf of the government.
MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
DOJ-OGR-00001011.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, concerning Case 21-770. It details a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Moe (Government), and Mr. Cohen regarding the necessity of conducting the arraignment and bail hearing remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court affirms that the proceeding cannot be delayed as the detained defendant is seeking bail and notes the significant public interest in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00008412.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on December 17, 2021, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge discusses procedural matters regarding background information for the jury and addresses 'No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues.' Attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Christian Everdell (Defense) are present, and the court suggests deferring the consent argument to the discussion of the Rule 412 motion due to overlapping issues.
DOJ-OGR-00011619.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge advises the defendant of their right to appeal the conviction and sentence within 14 days. The Court also discusses administrative matters, specifically setting the 'end of the conspiracy date' to July 2004 for the purpose of the judgment, to which neither the prosecution (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) objects at that moment.
DOJ-OGR-00001918.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript from December 10, 2020, concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It captures the conclusion of a statement by Ms. Farmer (a victim), who argues Maxwell is a flight risk due to global associates and wealth, and urges her continued detention. Following this, the Judge questions prosecutor Ms. Moe to confirm there are no other victims wishing to speak and clarifies that the government is not relying on 'danger to the community' arguments for pretrial detention.
DOJ-OGR-00013842.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense counsel argues that witnesses testifying for Ms. Maxwell require anonymity due to intense media attention and potential harassment. The Judge instructs the defense and prosecution (Ms. Moe) to confer, identify specific witnesses, and submit arguments if they cannot agree.
DOJ-OGR-00014834.jpg
This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00001026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. The Judge sets a firm trial date for July 12, 2021, and rules to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for discovery and defense preparation. The proceedings then transition to arguments regarding the government's motion for detention (bail hearing), involving attorneys Mr. Cohen (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Government).
DOJ-OGR-00013600.jpg
A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed August 10, 2022. The prosecutor (Ms. Moe) argues that specific evidence is relevant to prove a female subject was an adult in the 2000s and therefore could not have been an 'underage girl' personal assistant at that time, rebutting a defense photograph. The Court agrees the rebuttal is relevant and allows it, before moving to a sidebar to discuss jury instructions.
Entities connected to both Ms. Moe and The government
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship