The jury
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
witnesses
|
Professional judicial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional judicial |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lawyers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Instructional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Jury deliberation | Juror 50 described the jury's deliberation process, which involved reading instructions, methodic... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jury deliberations during which the jury sent a note to the court for clarification. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury trial | A four-and-a-half-week jury trial where the Government presented evidence of repeated sexual abus... | 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 | Closing arguments | Attorneys presented their closing arguments, asking the jury to make inferences from the evidence. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation / Jury Note submission | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jane testified about being sexually abused in New Mexico. | Courtroom / concerning New ... | View |
| N/A | Trial | A legal proceeding where testimony is given, evidence is admitted, and rulings are made. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deliberations | The period during which the jury considers the case and must not communicate with others or use e... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The jury was deliberating the case and sent a note to the court for clarification. | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation event | Juror No. 11 was displaced during jury deliberations due to a health emergency and replaced with ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberations | The jury was deliberating on the charges against Maxwell, during which they sent a note to the ju... | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberations | The jury deliberated and sent a note to the court for clarification on Count Four of the Indictment. | District Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial where the legal instructions to the jury regarding Mann Act counts were discussed. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Instruction Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of the evidence portion of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The closing arguments of a trial, during which the parties present their final case to the jury. | courthouse | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government summation. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) in which this jury instruction was filed. | N/A | View |
| 2025-12-23 | N/A | Potential Deliberation Date | Courthouse | View |
| 2025-11-17 | N/A | Closing arguments, summations, jury instructions, and start of deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Government's Exhibit 603 was admitted into evidence and witness A. Farme... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Trial proceeding | A jury charge on 'conscious avoidance' or 'willful blindness' was given as part of a criminal trial. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court prepares for and begins the closing argument phase of a trial. The jury is brought in a... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017877.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures an argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the admissibility of a 'book' or 'list' (likely an address book) and whether it constitutes hearsay. Pagliuca argues that the government is offering the document to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically that the people listed had contact with 'underage females'—rather than for a non-hearsay purpose like notice.
DOJ-OGR-00008626.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 1: Role of the Court,' which explains the judge's responsibility to define the law and the jury's sworn duty to follow those legal instructions regardless of personal opinion or opposing statements by attorneys. The text emphasizes that the jury must consider the instructions as a whole during deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00008612.jpg
This document is Page 74 of a court filing (Jury Instruction No. 52) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 18, 2021. The judge instructs the jury that evidence seized by law enforcement was obtained lawfully and properly admitted. The jury is directed to disregard any personal opinions about the search methods and to give the evidence full consideration in determining the defendant's guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00008603.jpg
This document is page 65 of a court filing (Document 563) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains jury instructions regarding the evaluation of witness credibility, specifically highlighting how to weigh the testimony of a witness with a prior felony conviction (highlighted text). It also instructs the jury on the use of pseudonyms or first names to protect the privacy of certain witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008601.jpg
This document is page 63 (internal page 62) of a court filing dated December 18, 2021, from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains specific jury instructions regarding the burden of proof and 'guilt by association,' explicitly instructing the jury that they cannot convict Maxwell solely based on her association with other criminals or her knowledge of their wrongdoing.
DOJ-OGR-00008546.jpg
This document is a legal filing from December 18, 2021, containing introductory instructions from a court to a jury. The core message of 'Instruction No. 1: Role of the Court' is to establish the court's absolute authority on matters of law, directing the jury that they have a sworn duty to accept and apply the law exactly as the judge presents it, regardless of their own opinions or any conflicting legal arguments made by attorneys during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008516.jpg
This document is page 60 of court filing 562 (Jury Instructions) from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains Instruction No. 43 regarding 'Inferences,' explaining to the jury how to logically deduce facts from evidence versus guessing. Crucially, it instructs the jury that they cannot infer Maxwell's guilt based solely on her presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge that a crime was being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008515.jpg
This document is page 59 of 82 from a court filing dated December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains Jury Instruction No. 42, which explains the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence using an analogy about rain and umbrellas. The instruction concludes by reminding the jury that they must be satisfied of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting her.
DOJ-OGR-00008463.jpg
This page contains Jury Instruction No. 2 ('Role of the Jury') filed on December 17, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text instructs the jury that they are the sole judges of facts and credibility, and clarifies that statements made by lawyers or rulings made by the judge do not constitute evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00008462.jpg
This document is a page of introductory jury instructions from a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The judge explicitly outlines the jury's duty to accept the law exactly as the court presents it, setting aside personal opinions or conflicting legal arguments from attorneys. The jury is instructed to consider all instructions together and is permitted to take a copy of them into the jury room for deliberation.
DOJ-OGR-00008446.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on December 19, 2021, outlines the status of various trial exhibits. The Government reports that after conferring with the defense, they have reached an agreement on redactions for certain exhibits (GX 603, GX 604, DX AF-1) and asks the Court to admit specific versions into evidence, some publicly and one under seal to protect third-party privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00021072.jpg
This page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) argues two main points regarding the Defendant's conviction and sentencing. First, it claims the Court failed to correct a juror misunderstanding regarding 'Count Four,' specifically whether the illegal sexual activity involving victim 'Jane' had to occur in New York versus New Mexico. Second, it argues the sentencing guidelines were miscalculated, specifically disputing an 'aggravating role adjustment' regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
DOJ-OGR-00021013.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00016130.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text contains instructions from the judge to the jury regarding how to evaluate witness testimony and the importance of keeping an open mind until all evidence is presented. Notably, the judge addresses the significant media attention surrounding the case and establishes that witnesses may use pseudonyms or first names only to protect their privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00016129.jpg
This document is page 19 of 106 from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains standard jury instructions delivered by the judge, explaining that statements by lawyers, objections, and excluded testimony do not constitute evidence. The judge instructs the jury to rely on their common sense and life experience when evaluating testimony and exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00017207.jpg
This document contains jury instructions from a legal proceeding, clarifying what constitutes evidence and outlining strict rules for juror conduct during deliberations. The judge instructs the jury that only witness answers, exhibits, and stipulations are evidence, and prohibits them from communicating about the case or using electronic devices and social media for any related discussions.
DOJ-OGR-00016767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that the defense should be allowed to highlight that the allegations are 25 years old. He asserts this explains the absence of corroborating evidence, such as geo-location data, because records are destroyed over such a long period.
DOJ-OGR-00016637.jpg
This document is page 154 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination testimony of an expert witness named Loftus regarding memory science. Loftus explains the concepts of 'confidence malleability' and 'prestige enhancing memory distortion,' describing how humans often inaccurately remember themselves in a more positive light without intending to lie.
DOJ-OGR-00016612.jpg
This document is page 129 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. The text features direct examination testimony from a witness named Loftus (likely memory expert Elizabeth Loftus) discussing the suggestiveness of psychotherapy, the creation of false memories through recovered memory therapy, and the psychological concept of 'labeling' altering perception of ambiguous stimuli.
DOJ-OGR-00008926.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page 'i') for a legal filing (Document 600) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. The filing outlines arguments to vacate Maxwell's convictions on Mann Act counts due to variances from the indictment, consolidate conspiracy counts because they are multiplicitous, and dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay. It references specific evidence types including flight records, passenger manifests, and financial documents.
DOJ-OGR-00017337.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript page where a judge explains their reasoning for rejecting a defense proposal regarding how to answer a jury's question about 'Count Four'. The judge found the proposal unhelpful and reiterated the need for the jury to consider the full legal instruction. The judge also formally places on the record their decision from the previous day to extend the jury's deliberation schedule by one hour.
DOJ-OGR-00017335.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Moe addresses the Court in the absence of the jury, first noting a safety caution regarding an open door to the jury room. She then argues against a defense letter filed earlier that morning, stating it repeats arguments regarding jury instructions that the Court had already rejected the previous day.
DOJ-OGR-00017266.jpg
This document is page 245 of a court transcript (Jury Charge) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains specific legal instructions from the judge to the jury regarding how to handle redacted evidence, the definition and weight of 'Stipulations' (Instruction No. 57), and the prohibition against the jury considering potential punishment during deliberations (Instruction No. 58).
DOJ-OGR-00017254.jpg
This document is a transcript of a jury charge from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge instructs the jury on the legal definition of an inference, distinguishing it from speculation and explaining how to draw reasonable conclusions from evidence. The judge specifically warns the jury that they cannot find the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty based solely on her presence at and knowledge of a crime being committed.
DOJ-OGR-00013985.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, identified as Loftus (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), is testifying on direct examination about the concepts of 'post-event information' and 'post-event suggestion' and how conversations, biased interrogations, and media exposure can contaminate human memory. She also mentions her professional experience consulting with the FBI and Secret Service regarding interviewing techniques.
New Mexico
A note regarding New Mexico sent during deliberations.
The Jury Note
Referenced in section I.A.2 as a background fact.
Clarification on Count Four
Question regarding Count Four and the second element.
Question regarding Count Four elements
Inquiry about whether intent for sexual activity in New Mexico and aiding return flight satisfies Count Four.
Dismissal timing
Note regarding dismissal at 5 p.m. and timing for tomorrow.
Count Four of the Indictment
Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico where the intent for sexual activity existed.
Clarification on Count Four
Court Exhibit #15; indicated confusion about whether intent for sexual activity in New Mexico was sufficient for conviction.
Clarification on Count Four
Indicated the jury thought it could convict if intent was for sexual activity in New Mexico.
Clarification on Count Four
Question asking if the defendant can be found guilty under the second element if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico.
Question about elements/aiding and abetting
A note sent by the jury asking for clarification, interpreted differently by prosecution and defense.
Jury inquiry
Referenced as 'the jury's last note'.
Clarification on Count Four
Asked if defendant can be found guilty if she aided the return flight but not the flight to New Mexico where intent for sexual activity existed.
Clarification on Count Four
Question regarding aiding in transportation of Jane's return flight versus flight to New Mexico and intent.
Question regarding liability and facts
A note posing a question that led to debate over accomplice liability and flight arrangements.
Clarification on Count Four of the Indictment
The jury asked if the defendant (Maxwell) could be found guilty under the second element of Count Four if she aided in Jane's return flight, but not the initial flight to New Mexico where the intent for sexual activity was formed.
Count Four and 'motivating factor'
The jury asked a question regarding Count Four, which the judge found difficult to parse but related to the concept of a 'motivating factor'.
Clarification on convicting under Count Four of the Indic...
The jury inquired if the defendant could be found guilty for aiding in the transportation of Jane's return flight, even if the criminal intent for sexual activity was associated with the initial flight to New Mexico, not the return flight.
Clarification on Count Four
The jury asked if Maxwell could be found guilty under Count Four if she aided in Jane's return flight but not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was formed.
Clarification on Count Four of the Indictment
The jury asked if the defendant (Maxwell) could be found guilty under the second element of Count Four if she aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where the intent for sexual activity existed.
Telling the truth
Alessi told the jury he would tell the truth.
Clarification on Count Four
Asked if conviction on Count Four was possible if Maxwell assisted with Jane's return trip but not the flight to NM, and regarding intent for sexual activity in NM.
End of deliberations
The jury sent a note stating they would like to end deliberations at 5 p.m. for the day.
End of deliberations
The jury sent a note stating they would like to end deliberations at 5 p.m. for the day.
Jury Conduct and Communication Restrictions
Instructions prohibiting jurors from discussing the case with each other or anyone else, including via social media and phones, until deliberations begin.
End of deliberations
A note from the jury stating they would like to end deliberations at 5 p.m. on the day of the transcript.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity