Relationship Details

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022), likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger is arguing to exclude photographic evidence (Exhibits 332 and 332B), claiming they are manipulated 'PSD files' (Photoshop) rather than original photos. She argues that metadata titles were manually affixed by a person, creating hearsay issues, and that mere possession of a CD found in a home does not authenticate the images.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane.' The discussion centers on whether the defense can ask Jane if she believes her testimony in the criminal trial will assist her in a separate civil litigation recovery, and involves arguments regarding attorney-client privilege waivers when information is disclosed to the government.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe regarding the interpretation of a jury note. The discussion focuses heavily on the grammatical placement of a comma in a question about liability for 'transportation of the return flight' versus a 'flight to New Mexico.'

This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on December 8, 2021, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Court and defense attorney Ms. Menninger regarding the classification of prospective jurors 226 and 404. The judge outlines the logistics for voir dire, planning to call back 231 prospective jurors in groups of 50 per day to seat a final qualified pool of 50 to 60.

This document is page 15 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Kane, where attorney Ms. Menninger raises an objection citing Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) (Business Records Exception). The Judge acknowledges the objection and allows counsel to approach the sidebar to make a record of the argument.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Menninger (defense) explains the delay in reviewing materials due to the volume of '3500 material,' mentioning approximately 500 nontestifying witnesses. The Court questions why an application to enforce a subpoena for a potential defense witness was filed late at night (11:54) despite the witness being disclosed for months.

This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue over the admissibility of questions regarding a witness's ('Jane') settlement negotiations, with the defense arguing it proves bias and the prosecution objecting under Rule 408. The Judge intercedes by citing *Manko v. United States*, suggesting that the civil settlement exclusion rule (Rule 408) may not apply in criminal prosecutions.

This document is page 20 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. The content captures a procedural discussion where the Judge ('The Court') outlines the legal requirements for introducing extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness, citing United States v. Gulani. Ms. Menninger briefly responds to a question about a pseudonym.

This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding dated August 10, 2022, involving a witness identified as A. Farmer. The testimony covers A. Farmer's past interactions with the FBI in 2006 and 2020, and an award received from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, which A. Farmer describes as a significant amount providing security for their family. The transcript also records objections and rulings by attorneys Ms. Menninger and Ms. Pomerantz, and the Court.

This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Menninger and the Judge regarding the schedule for closing arguments, jury instructions ('charge'), and the commencement of jury deliberations. The Judge outlines a schedule involving government arguments, a lunch break, defense arguments, rebuttal, and the potential start of deliberations that same day.

This document is page 151 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between Ms. Menninger and the Court regarding a proffer and a 40-minute timeline, immediately followed by a luncheon recess. The header indicates the proceedings involved the cross-examination of a witness referred to as 'Jane'.

This document is a single page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the end of a session during the cross-examination of a witness named A. Farmer, where Ms. Menninger speaks briefly before the Judge (The Court) announces a 15-minute morning break for the jury. The page is largely blank space following the announcement of the break.