Relationship Details

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, detailing a discussion between attorney Mr. Cohen and The Court. Mr. Cohen describes the severe, solitary confinement-like conditions his client endured at the MDC, including denial of basic rights and access to legal counsel, and requests more time to address the court's concerns regarding financial matters. The Court seeks clarification on the nature of the client's detention, specifically if there was consent.

This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The judge begins by confirming that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and counsel, Mr. Cohen, have a working audio connection. Another individual, Ms. Moe, interrupts to report that the public call-in line is full and proposes an alternative for her colleagues to listen, which the court questions due to concerns about speakerphone feedback.

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 page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is arguing a point by citing past high-profile cases like Madoff, Dreier, and Esposito. The judge interrupts to question the relevance of these precedents, specifically asking if those defendants had substantial international connections, which distinguishes them from the current case. Mr. Cohen admits they did not, highlighting that the current defendant's foreign ties are a key point of contention.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, makes his final points to the judge, arguing against the government's reliance on the 'U.S. v. Epstein' case. Cohen contends that the Epstein case was primarily about 'dangerousness,' a legal issue not being pursued by the government in the current matter, making the precedent inapplicable.