top of page
Search
    • Dec 29, 2021
    • 10 min read

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

Updated: Jan 12, 2022

Dec 29th Trial Notes



#MaximumMaxwell jury delberation could go into New Year's Eve & Day due to Omicron but still no call-in line, 8:55 am stand-up in Foley Square while questions on GMax links of UN /

@AntonioGuterres UNanswered




OK - in US v. #GhislaineMaxwell, jury deliberating under threat of continuing into New Years Eve & Day due to Omicron (but no public call-in line), the lawyers are assembled, GMax is at defense table and we're off - Inner City Press will live tweet, thread below


Ghislaine Maxwell is in a maroon sweater. Judge Nathan is still not on the bench, but word is, There is a jury note. They resumed at 9 am, so a note by 9:33 am is relatively early. For them. Comparatively.


Thanks. Not sure I've got the camera (for live streaming) entirely figured out but glad it worked right-side up this time. Will keep live streaming regardless.

Replying to @innercitypress and @antonioguterres

Yay you got the camera round the right way Keep up the awesome work, watching every update from Australia


Judge Nathan: I have a note. Can we please have the transcripts for Shawn, Cimberly Espinosa, then a name I can't read. Then Amanda Young, then Jason Richards. Also, can we have clarification about our schedules? 12/31? 1/1? There's a conflict I'll do at sidebar


[Judge Nathan goes off-the-record at sidebar. Meanwhile, clearly the jurors picked up on Judge Nathan's unstated threat yesterday about "all week" including by implication New Years Eve - and maybe New Years Day. The noted added, So we can plan...


[While the lawyers are at sidebar whispering with Judge Nathan, Ghislaine Maxwell is alone at the defense table, rummaging through her green plastic accordion file. The two Marshals are watching her closely]



Judge Nathan returns: Beyond the private matter, we still can't read the name of the fifth person they want the testimony of. So I'll send them a note asking. I'll step down to do that. All rise!


Judge Nathan is back and asks the lawyers how to respond on scheduling, mentioning 1/2 (the Sunday) too. Defense wants them to have the weekend off. Judge Nathan, not so much. Only if "unmovable commitments."


Judge Nathan: Given my concern about Omicron, quarantine for 10 days, we need to proceed every day. AUSA: We agree, every day absent a hardship. Judge Nathan: So I'm going to tell them, Yes, 12/31, 1/1 and 1/2 unless you reach a verdict. Unless unmovable conflict.


Podcast of Dec 29-1: #MaxwellJury wants to know New Years plans, still no public call-in line, UN censors

@AntonioGuterres GMax links



Update of 9:59 am, another note: "We are requesting the testimony of the expert witness on memory." [Elizabeth Loftus, of Harvey Weinstein (and other) fame] Judge Nathan: This is Court Exhibit 19. [Inner City Press asked these be put on PACER - they have not been


I've not heard of it. Especially not in a trial that was put on hold for 3 days so that the judge could go to DC seeking confirmation to a higher court. But hey, these are unprecedented times: person seeking to observe the trial barred from entry, no call-in line

Am i reading this right? The judge wants the jury to work on 12/31, 1/1, & 1/2? If so, is this normal?


There's a dispute about redacting part of the testimony of Cimerly Espinosa. Judge Nathan: She said, Seems like they started dating other people, Ghislaine just moved on. Then there was an objection. Let's be sure we send the right one back.


Judge Nathan: Anything else for now? No. No. All rise! Fast podcast is up



I think this is an important issue: courts are supposed to be transparent to the public, and during this trial a person covering it was not allowed into the courthouse, with Omicron cited. So there should be a call-in line. Immediately. Today. Why isn't there?

Replying to @innercitypress and @antonioguterres

Thank you for educating me on call in line and the fact that other cases are using them but this one not.


#MaximumMaxwell Overtime: In US v. Ghislaine Maxwell Trial, Now Jury Wants Testimony of Maxwell's (& Weinstein's) Expert Loftus, & New Years Schedule But Still No Call-In Line - story:


In the lull, from the Miami Herald: Liz Stein "was denied entry and told by a U.S. Marshal that no seats had been set aside in the court for victims. The office of U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan, who is presiding over the trial, declined to comment" 1/x


Inner City Press did see some of the back-and-forth in 318 [just as it earlier saw Leah Saffian move into the well of the courtroom with her phone] - but 1 question here is the US Attorney's Office using approval by Epstein Fund as proxy for being a victim 2/x


It seems the position of SDNY - the court, not the prosecutors - is that all victims can get a seat in the courtroom. But who determines who the victims are? Some of these decisions, Judge Nathan seems to be passing the buck on. Who decided to redact flight logs?



The question I'm asking is how does Leah Saffian have her phone in the courtroom? She has not filed a "notice of appearance" in US v. Maxwell, & has no other case in SDNY. But has phone, shows it to Kevin &, some say, Ghislaine. Is there some Judge Nathan order?

Replying to @ohreallytruly @xeni and 3 others

Is she monitoring SM? Is she monitoring it for the family to keep the Maxwell surname decent? Or is she collecting info for an appeal based on media interference? Why did she visit GMax in the MDC with Bobbi back in April? What is her role, she's not been docketed but she's there



There is a way to apply to bring electronic devices in - and it is supposed to be in the public docket. (See one such request in this US v. Maxwell case, below). But in the docket, no mention of Leah Saffian - no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice, nothing


It seems that to be part of the defense team, Leah Saffian would have to file a notice of appearance and be listed in the docket. But she is not. Maybe they asked Judge Nathan to sign an "electronic devices" order. But if so, it should be in the docket. It is not.

Replying to @innercitypress

Are legal teams allowed to have phones; has defense claimed her part of their team?



Thanks. Not only is Leah Saffian not listed as one of Maxwell's 5 lawyers in this case - she does not appear as an attorney in any SDNY case. So just to be clear, are you saying that any lawyer, from any state, can bring a phone into the SDNY courthouse? Thanks.

Replying to @innercitypress

Incorrect. An attorney can apply and get an electronic services pass. So if for example, I were sitting in the courtroom with you right now, I would have my phone. You’re good, but need to realize you don’t necessarily know the ins and outs and sometimes mislead your followers.



Further on Leah Saffian - & maybe she'll find some defenders or obfuscators for this, too - without being listed as one of Maxwell's 5 lawyers in this case, she went into "the well" and sat at defense table. Others say they saw here sharing her phone with Maxwell.


Leah Saffian, having done the search, is not listed as admitted to the bar in New York. Nor has an pro hac vice been filed. Yet there she is, in the well of Courtroom 318, at the defense talk with her phone, talking with Ghislaine. Totally normal?

Replying to @innercitypress

The attorney must be a member of the bar. If she’s admitted in NY and has a NY bar card, she would use that to apply for an SDNY pass. You do not have to be an attorney of record in any case to even get the pass.

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1476240594406195206?s=20


Since Leah Saffian does not show up as a New York attorney, and is not admitted pro hace vice in this or any other SDNY case, how does she get the electronic service pass? Or is there a signed order, & if so, given restrictions on the overflow rooms, where is it?

Replying to @beyondreasdoubt and @innercitypress

Also, requests for electronic devices are not always posted on the docket.


By the way, I don't disagree. At all. I'm just saying, given the restrictions in this case - no use of electronics by journalists or public in Courtroom 318, no public call-in line - the unexplained Saffian phone, at the defense table, for Maxwell is a question

Replying to @innercitypress

No free country should disallow cell phones in courtrooms.



That's what I was saying from the beginning. Anyway, it's an inquiry I find myself going down during this lull between jury notes. Story forthcoming : ) #MaximumMaxwell

Replying to @BenAdamsO_O and @innercitypress

The “issue” here is that she is not admitted in ny so likely wouldn’t have the secure pass.


I'm focused on more than one thing at once : ) But more seriously, thanks for your replies, they've helped sharpen the issue. It is now "ripe for decision" - but who will decide it? Already have letter in to Judge Nathan about need for call-in line...

Replying to @innercitypress

Nah, you were focusing on her not having filed a NOA. Which is why I replied about the secure pass.



COURTROOM CONFIDENTIAL, The Strange Case of Leah Saffian: During US v. Maxwell Trial Leah Saffian Sat At Defense Table Showing Ghislaine Her Phone, In-N-Out II - Inner City Press story:



I asked officials here if it is permissible to share a smart phone with an incarcerated defendant and was told, No. Also that she should not have been in the well of the court (she was, at the defense table) while others were admonished & nearly more for the same

Replying to @ASilNY and @innercitypress

Good job, Matt! You have no evidence she broke the rules, but your crazy followers are now going to make an issue.


I asked officials here if it is permissible to share a smart phone with an incarcerated defendant and was told, No. Also that she should not have been in the well of the court (she was, at the defense table) while others were admonished & nearly more for the same


One addition (didn't fit in 280 characters) - Leah Saffian is not listed as one of Maxwell's 5 lawyers in this case. And I have seen CJA defense lawyers admonished in Mag Court for sharing phone with their clients. But again, Saffian is not Maxwell's lawyer here.



Update of 2:12 pm - after a lull (and story about The Strange Case of Leah Saffian

we're back - Bobbi Sternheim is at the defense table, and there's word that's another jury note. Thread resumes below


Judge Nathan assumes the bench and says... "May we please have the Larry Visoski testimony." There's laughter in the courtroom. Judge Nathan: It's court exhibit 20. [Leaves bench.]



Thanks. I didn't like that characterization, either. But onward - the Leah story is written & we're back to US v. Maxwell jury notes, if only a request for testimony of 2d pilot who said Jane looked "adult" and more- going back to threads earlier in the trial...

Replying to @beyondreasdoubt @ASilNY and @innercitypress

That's really offensive to assume all his followers are "crazy". Not very clever to use a mental illness to argue a point with someone on twitter. How sad, when you are obviously educated enough to know better.


I think because, with the pressure to reach a verdict, it is an almost comical let-down to have the jury note after some hours be only for 1 more witness' testimony. I'm not saying it was uproarious laughter. It functioned like a groan, but came out like laughter

Replying to @innercitypress

Wait I don’t get it. Why was there laughter?



I wish. Just covering some other cases during the long breaks between jury notes. Right now covering an EDNY / Brooklyn case, lower profile than US v. Maxwell, for which there is a public call-in line. Go figure.

Replying to @innercitypress @sdnylive and 5 others

I thought you were fixing to say another note has been sent..



COURTROOM COUNTDOWN: Jeffrey Epstein - Virginia Roberts Giuffre Release Agreement To Be Unsealed January 3 @SDNYLIVE

As Prince Andrew Contests Giuffre Residence - but will #MaxwellJury still be out? Inner City Press story



ALERT: There is a verdict, soon to be read out, in US v. #GhislaineMaxwell. Inner City Press has been covering the case


We're told: "A verdict has been reached in US vs. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN)... Please be advised that a verdict has been reached in the above matter. The verdict will be announced in open court shortly." Watch this feed, thread continues below



·Judge Nathan: I am going to read the verdict after the jury comes in. Anyone in the courtroom who makes noise will be removed. Bring in the jury.


[While awaiting the jury - Inner City Press uploaded the verdict sheet to its DocumentCloud, it's the last two pages of this:




[In the front row of Courtroom 318: Leah Saffian, Kevin Maxwell, the two sisters, Isabelle and Christine... Drumroll.


[Jury enters.] Judge Nathan: Have your reached your verdict? Foreperson: We have. Judge Nathan (opens envelope) - Count 1: GUILTY. Count 2: Not Guilty. Count 3: Guilty. Count 4: Guilty. Count 5: Guilty. Count 6: Guilty.


BREAKING: #GhislaineMaxwell GUILTY of 5 of 6 counts in

@SDNYLIVE trial for sex trafficking, etc.. Inner City Press is live tweeting it here:


[For those asking, this is the ONLY count Maxwell was found not guilty on: "COUNT TWO: Enticement of an Individual Under the Age of 17 (Jane only) to Travel with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." Rest at end of this:




Bobbi Sternheim: We want an order to get Ms. Maxwell the booster. Judge Nathan: It is available at MDC. Sentencing date will be chosen later after the parties confer. Very soon podcast, live-stream and stories on http://InnerCityPress.com


VERDICT: #GhislaineMaxwell GUILTY on 5 of 6 Sex Trafficking Counts After Jury Trial With No Call-In Line - Inner City Press story:



#MaximumMaxwell just after verdict, guilty on 5 of 6 counts, narrrow prosecution, limited transparency amid UN's cover-up




Comments

bottom of page