Relationship Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell discussing the admissibility of Ghislaine Maxwell's 2019 deposition testimony. The specific dispute centers on distinguishing between when Maxwell 'owned' a specific property versus when she began 'living' there (allegedly as early as 1992 or 1993).

This document is page 15 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Ms. Menninger regarding the scope of a witness's testimony concerning the technical properties of burning CDs and file dates (created vs. modified). The defense argues that certain technical details were not disclosed in a 'November 26 letter,' while the prosecution argues these details are common knowledge not requiring specialized expertise.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The transcript details a discussion between the Judge and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the admissibility of remote testimony for a witness who may have tested positive for COVID-19, referencing Ms. Sternheim's proffer and the standards of Rule 15. The government indicates it would not resist a finding of unavailability if a positive test is confirmed.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, involving a discussion between the Judge, defense counsel (Pagliuca, Menninger), and the government (Rohrbach). The primary topic is whether potential expert witnesses LaPorte and Naso will testify; the defense suggests it is unlikely and was done out of caution related to a document concerning 'Accuser No. 2,' while the government expresses concern about being surprised mid-trial.

This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that under New Mexico law, the sexual activity in question was not illegal because it lacked force or coercion, and requests that jury instructions reflect this distinction. The Court agrees to consider how best to clarify this for the jury.

This document is a page from a court transcript in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Judge ('The Court') and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss a male witness who seemingly violated instructions by discussing his testimony with his sister. The Court orders the government to conduct a full investigation into this transgression and produce the facts to the defense by the end of the day.

This document is page 26 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding Rule 16 disclosures and the sufficiency of notice provided to the defense concerning the opinions of expert witness Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient, they may face issues later, emphasizing equal standards for both parties.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Court, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding deadlines for submitting briefs and the results of a factual investigation concerning a male witness. The text also addresses a conflict where the defense has moved to preclude this witness's testimony while simultaneously holding him under a defense subpoena.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach and Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge regarding the redaction and docketing of a letter and an 'Exhibit A'. The proceedings appear to be paused briefly while waiting for missing jurors to arrive.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of expert testimony provided by a Mr. Flatley concerning digital forensics and metadata. The judge instructs the parties on how to handle differing expert opinions on forensic principles.