the defense
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Opposing parties |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chapell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense motion to exclude testimony | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The filing of a superseding indictment and the addition of Accuser-4, which expanded the scope of... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing where the defense raised numerous arguments. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense filed a Renewed Bail Application asking the Court to reverse its prior decision. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal request | The defendant made a request to the court to seal the voir dire materials, including the joint ju... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | The Government and the defense conferred and reached an agreement about redactions for exhibits G... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell proposed detailed questions regarding sexual abuse history for potential jurors. | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The process of jury selection (voir dire) for the trial. The Government is arguing about the proc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document is an instruction for the jury during a trial, identified by case number 1:20-cr-003... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | The court orders the government to work with the defense to provide adequate communication betwee... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court action | The Court denied the defense request for relief regarding the isolation of statements in the firs... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | Parties are ordered to confer and prepare a stipulation that Government Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 5... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | A summation is being given in a criminal trial where the defense has attacked the credibility of ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense filed a 'Renewed Bail Motion' complaining about the volume of evidence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding / trial | Discussion of procedures for providing trial exhibits (slides) to the public following closing ar... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal conference | A conference held on November 23rd where the limiting instruction was previously discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses procedures for an upcoming trial, specifically the opening statements and ... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | The defense filed a 'Renewed Bail Motion' complaining that the documentary evidence produced is n... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Jane was questioned by the defense about an application and a legal document (an interrogatory) i... | courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Proposal for the defense to file discovery-related motions, including those related to the nonpro... | THE COURT | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A legal argument occurred where the Court rejected the defense's proposed jury instructions conce... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses preparations and rules for an upcoming trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Inspection availability | An item was made available for inspection by Ms. Moe's side. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013535.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the trial schedule, specifically when the government will rest its case and when the defense will begin. Ms. Moe also requests that the defense produce Rule 26.2 disclosures immediately upon the conclusion of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00010279.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 647) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that the jury was confused regarding the jurisdiction of New York state laws applied to conduct (sexual abuse of 'Jane') that occurred in New Mexico. The defense contends that the Court erred by declining a proposed supplemental instruction that would have clarified that Count Four requires an intent to violate New York law within New York, not merely sexual activity in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00010244.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a juror's history of sexual abuse (involving a stepbrother and a friend) is relevant to establishing bias, as it may align with victim testimony heard during the trial. The Court denies Everdell's request to ask the juror specific questions about their therapy and trauma, citing that the defense failed to propose comparable questions during the original jury selection (voir dire).
DOJ-OGR-00014746.jpg
This document is the final page (13 of 13) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Sternheim (Defense) noting rising COVID rates at the MDC facility, and the Court acknowledging availability (presumably of vaccines or testing) at the MDC before adjourning the session. Ms. Moe represents the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014740.jpg
This is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Pomerantz (Government) and the Court discussing a dispute over redactions in a witness testimony, specifically regarding an answer that lacked a 'predicate foundation.' The Judge reads a portion of the disputed testimony which mentions individuals going 'their separate ways' and explicitly names 'Ghislaine'.
DOJ-OGR-00014562.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the beginning of the government's rebuttal argument delivered by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Comey refocuses the jury on Maxwell's specific alleged crimes, mentioning victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie by name, and argues that the defense is attempting to distract from the evidence presented by her colleague, Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00005864.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) outlines the Government's argument for admitting evidence of rape. The prosecution rebuts defense claims that such evidence is irrelevant or overly inflammatory (Rule 403), asserting that the victims' testimony is necessary to explain the complex, multi-year relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims. The text clarifies that the Indictment charges conspiracies for 'sexual activity' and 'commercial sex acts,' not merely 'sexualized massages' as the defense suggested.
DOJ-OGR-00005573.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the court's ruling on the anonymity of 'Minor Victim-4' during trial. The court rejects the defense's argument that using the victim's real name is necessary for impeachment or to address allegations of suborning perjury. The ruling allows the defense to use the victim's first name and show unredacted exhibits to the jury, but prohibits saying the victim's last name out loud in court.
DOJ-OGR-00005557.jpg
This document is page 3 of 40 from a legal filing (Document 383) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a Table of Contents listing arguments G through I, which focus on excluding evidence of victims' consent, addressing defense refusals regarding motions, and preventing the defense from mentioning previous civil litigation outcomes to the jury. The page bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00005556.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed by the government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The motion outlines arguments to protect the privacy of minor victims by allowing testimony under pseudonyms and sealing exhibits. It also seeks to preclude the defense from introducing what the government deems irrelevant evidence and improper arguments, including prior investigations of the defendant and the government's alleged motives.
DOJ-OGR-00005786.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page 2 of the brief, page 3 of the PDF) for a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines legal arguments by the Government opposing Defense motions, specifically concerning the identification of the defendant by 'Minor Victim-4', the admission of government exhibits, and the use of the terms 'Victims' and 'Rape' during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00017598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Comey are discussing legal obligations under Rule 16 regarding the disclosure of impeachment evidence (specifically photographs) prior to cross-examination. The text mentions a witness who testified about the appearance of a home and notes that this witness worked for Jeffrey Epstein until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00011639.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms to the judge that an item was made available for inspection by the defense, resolving that issue. The judge then directs the conversation to the next matter: the admissibility of co-conspirator statements for the upcoming trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011627.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding an issue where the defense has subpoenaed the attorney representing 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at trial. The government argues they cannot understand what admissible testimony this attorney could offer that isn't covered by attorney-client privilege and indicates they will move to preclude it.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity