Relationship Details

This legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, is the second page of a declaration by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Rossmiller. It outlines a disagreement between the U.S. Government and the defense regarding proposed restrictions on the public identification of victims and witnesses in the case. The document specifies the conflicting paragraphs in the proposed orders from both sides and references an accompanying letter for the Government's full reasoning.

This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 621) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. The Government argues that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three (Mann Act conspiracy) and Count Five (Sex Trafficking conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), asserting they are distinct criminal schemes and not multiplicitous. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding jury instructions related to a witness/victim referred to as 'Jane'.

This document is page 7 of a court order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court is denying a third motion for bail, citing the Defendant's flight risk due to international ties, substantial financial resources, and experience evading detection. The Court also highlights a lack of candor regarding the Defendant's assets, noting discrepancies between information provided to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the Court in December 2020.

This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The motion, presumably from the prosecution, outlines a series of requests to the court to limit the defense's ability to introduce certain evidence and arguments during the upcoming trial. Key issues addressed include protecting witness identities, the admissibility of minor victims' statements, precluding discussion of prior investigations, and preventing arguments related to jury nullification or the defendant's status in a past civil case.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from a case in the Southern District. A speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against granting bail to a defendant, claiming he is a flight risk due to a lengthy, covert government investigation and his recent indictment. The judge ('THE COURT') questions the speaker about a recent submission that mentioned victims or their counsel oppose the defendant's release and asks if any of them wish to be heard.

This is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and rejecting arguments that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (specifically relating to COVID-19 lockdowns and attorney access) violate her constitutional rights. The document notes that she has received significant time to review discovery compared to other inmates.

This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and a demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets. The filing also refutes the defendant's complaints about her conditions of confinement, stating she has ample access to her legal counsel and discovery materials.

This document is page 32 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Moe argues that the defendant is a flight risk because she successfully lived in hiding for a year and purchased real estate using a fake name without detection. The Judge (The Court) interrupts to question why this specific information regarding the evasion was not presented until the government's reply brief.

This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments for release on bail, despite her offer to pay for private security guards, her claims of family ties in the US, and her offer to waive extradition rights from the UK and France. The Court concludes that no conditions can reasonably assure her appearance, dismissing arguments regarding COVID-19 prison conditions.

This page is a transcript from a court hearing dated April 1, 2021 (Case 21-770), likely related to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding detention. The defense attorney argues that the defendant is not a flight risk ('opposite of hiding') and contends that the perjury charge—stemming from a denial of guilt during a deposition—should not heavily weigh the 3142 analysis against release. The attorney notes the government has been investigating the case for ten years.

This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discusses a dispute over a jury note regarding 'Count Four.' The argument centers on whether the jury could convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico versus the required New York law violation. The text details a debate over the placement of a comma in the jury's note and the Court's subsequent instruction to the jury to focus on New York law.

This legal document argues that a district court's supervisory authority to suppress evidence is limited and should only be used when there is a clear violation of constitutional, statutory, or procedural law. Citing multiple legal precedents, the author contends that this power must be 'sparingly exercised' and that the defendant in this case has not established such a violation, and is therefore not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the government's actions.

This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a court case where the Government is arguing for the protection of 'Minor Victims' by allowing them to testify under pseudonyms. The Government asserts that this protection is necessary to prevent their identities from being exposed by news outlets, which would cause significant harm, and that the Defendant's need for witness information does not outweigh this need for protection. The document cites the Second Circuit's definition of a defendant's interests in witness disclosure.

This document is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and determining that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (including COVID-19 lockdowns) do not violate her constitutional rights or justify release. The text notes that the Defendant has received more time than other inmates to review discovery and communicate with counsel.

This court order, dated December 28, 2020, and signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, denies the Defendant's application for release from custody. The Court reaffirms its initial decision, concluding that the Defendant is a flight risk and that pre-trial detention is warranted. The parties are ordered to submit a joint letter by December 30, 2020, regarding any proposed redactions.

This document is page 46 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The Government argues that 'Juror 50' should be allowed to review his jury questionnaire before any potential hearing to consult with counsel regarding his Fifth Amendment rights. The text notes that Juror 50 does not recall answering questions about sexual assault and discusses procedural arguments regarding subpoenas and the scope of the inquiry.

This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if asked. The speaker asserts the government arrested the defendant due to a serious flight risk and points to the defense counsel's uncooperative behavior in a separate civil case as further evidence of untrustworthiness. The speaker concludes by noting the lack of a substantive response regarding the defendant's finances.

This is page 4 of a legal document filed on June 26, 2022, by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The document argues against adjourning a defendant's sentencing, stating that her continued access to legal documents and counsel means the sentencing should proceed as scheduled on June 28, 2022. The document is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey on behalf of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams.

This legal document details post-verdict issues in a criminal case where the defendant was found guilty. A week after the verdict, the Government notified the Court that a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave press interviews claiming to be a victim of sexual abuse, a fact he had denied on his jury questionnaire. The Government requested a hearing on the matter, which the Defendant subsequently opposed in a letter to the Court.

This document is page 21 (transcript page 17) of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text contains preliminary instructions from the judge to the jury regarding the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof resting solely on the government, and the defendant's right not to present evidence (specifically using female pronouns 'she' and 'her'). The judge also outlines their own role in deciding rules of law compared to the jury's role as fact-finders.

This is page 8 of a court filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's attempt to issue a subpoena to 'BSF' (Boies Schiller Flexner), characterizing it as an improper 'fishing expedition' for victim information and impeachment material that violates the 'Nixon test.' The Government also notes that the defendant failed to file a required response by the April 2, 2021 deadline.