THE MAXWELL EPSTEIN TRIAL SERIES: THE TRIAL – DAY 1
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – providing you with zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what’s going on with this administration and the law (feel free to share)
This is day 2 of our 22-part series, from pretrial through the trial to sentencing, all transcripts included and explained. Yesterday we covered the pretrial hearing that happened immediately before the trial started. Today we are starting on the first day of the trial (Notes from the Front members, the day 1 trial transcript (106 pages) is in your inbox now; if you are only just joining us you will find all of the previous transcripts and explainers in the archives here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/archive )
After a bit of last minute conferring between the Judge and the attorneys about things like procedures, the electronics versus paper thing from yesterday, how to handle a victim witness being allowed to testify under a pseudonym, etc., the final part of jury selection happens. At this point the jury pool has already been narrowed down, so that all that remains is selecting the actual jurors and alternate jurors from that remaining pool.
Jury selection is *not* in the transcript, so the next part of the transcript sees the Court (i.e. the Judge) welcoming the jury and the jury being sworn in – you see that in the transcript as “A jury of 12 and six alternates was impaneled and sworn.”
(By the way, you’ll see comments about distancing and mask removal throughout these transcripts; that’s because it’s the end of 2021, when people still took Covid seriously.)
The Court then goes on to explain to the jurors what they can expect, in other words how this trial (and really any trial) will proceed: instructions to the jury, then opening statements, then witness testimony, then closing arguments, and then the Judge will instruct the jury on the law, and then it’s off to jury deliberations. (On a personal note, I was always bummed out that it was unlikely that, if ever I was called to jury duty, I would *not* be dismissed, as generally speaking lawyers get rejected by one side or the other pretty quickly although, as you saw yesterday, neither side excused that one lawyer. I did finally get called for jury duty, and of course it was after I had to start medically isolating so I couldn’t even go. Ah well.)
Once the Judge is done talking to the jury it’s off to the races with opening remarks.
Now, two things to know about opening remarks: The prosecution almost always goes first (if it’s a civil trial then the Plaintiff goes first). And opening and closing remarks are *not* evidence. They are arguments, with each side telling the jury what they *intend* to prove, and what the jury *will* hear, and “the only conclusion can be”. Generally speaking they can say almost *anything* in opening and closing remarks (subject, of course, to certain rules), whether technically true or not; basically it’s fine to stretch the truth. Then during the trial it’s up to them to prove it. Again, opening and closing statements are not evidence, and are not testimony. But they still can be objected to (and are) such as when an attorney giving an opening statement tries to slip in something that has already been deemed to be excluded during a pretrial motion.
Going first, for the government, attorney Lara Pomerantz gives the opening statement for the government (i.e. the prosecution).
Ms. Pomerantz starts out telling the jury “I want to tell you about a young girl named Jane. It was 1994 and Jane was spending her summer at a camp for talented young kids. Jane turned 14 years old that summer. She was sitting at a picnic table with friends when a man and a woman walked by. The man introduced himself as a donor who gave scholarships to students at this camp.”
The man, of course, is Epstein. And the woman with him is Maxwell.
He is *mining a summer camp* to which he had access by virtue of being a donor.
Pomerantz goes on to explain, in great detail, what the Epstein-Maxwell game was, and the role that Maxwell played in it. And how many young girls were caught in that game.
Then she explains “Ladies and gentlemen, this opening statement is the government’s opportunity to give you a roadmap of the evidence that you’re going to see in this case, and I’m going to do that in two parts. First, I will tell you what I expect the evidence is going to show. Second, I’m going to talk about the different types of evidence that will prove that Ghislaine Maxwell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
She then goes on to describe Maxwell as “Epstein’s best friend and right hand,” and their “playbook” of gaining the young girls’ trust, learning and playing on their hopes and dreams, and getting to know their families. Further down she explains that Maxwell “manipulated the girls, groomed them for abuse, helped the girls feel comfortable as friendliness escalated to abuse. Sometimes she was even in the room for the massages herself, and sometimes she touched the girls’ bodies. And even when she was not in the room, make no mistake, she knew exactly what Epstein was going to do to those children when she sent them to him inside the massage rooms, massage rooms inside the houses the defendant ran for over a decade.”
In all the government’s opening statement is 14 pages long. The defense’s opening statement takes up 30 pages but in part that is because the government makes several objections during the course of the defense’s statements. This is all very illuminating and instructive and I am *sure* that by reading through that part, where the objections are made, and the Court discusses the objections (on what grounds, etc.) you will come away with a clear-eyed understanding of the dynamics in the courtroom *and* a better sense of why things seem to take *so darned long* in court!
The defense lawyer making their opening statement, Bobbi Sternheim, *opens* with – the very first words out of her mouth are – “Ever since Eve was tempting Adam with the apple, women have been blamed for the bad behavior of men, and women are often villainized and punished more than the men ever are.”
Wow! So she’s playing the sex card, and right out of the gate! And in case you have any doubt, her very next sentence is:
“The charges against Ghislaine Maxwell are for things that Jeffrey Epstein did, but she is not Jeffrey Epstein, she is not like Jeffrey Epstein, and she is not like any of the other men, powerful men, moguls, media giants who abuse women.”
A bit further down, “This case is about memory, manipulation, and money.” {Ed. note: Ah, it’s always good to work catchy alliteration into your remarks.} “As you will see, the accusations that you will hear from the mouths of four accusers — not like the hundreds that the government suggested you would hear from — you will hear from them and they will recount their memories, memories of a quarter century ago, memories that have been corrupted by things that have happened throughout the years, manipulated by a narcissistic man and self-interested civil lawyers, and a desire for a big jackpot of money.”
Nice. Attacking the victims. Attacking the victims’ lawyers (don’t forget that as we learned yesterday, the defense tried to *subpoena* one of the victim’s lawyers to *testify* – attorney/client privilege be damned!)
Now, I’m saying this, but I also recognize – as you should – that a defense attorney’s job is to *keep their client from being found guilty*, using every arrow available to them in their quiver. Which includes, yes, trying to make the prosecution’s witnesses look like filthy, money-grubbing liars. Criminal defense attorneys, when asked “how can you represent those people” will tell you that they believe strongly in the constitutional protections guaranteed to the accused – and I agree. But I don’t have to like it.
After the defense’s opening argument there is a ten minute recess (in this case that’s legal jargon for ‘potty break’), and then, after a short bit of housekeeping, the prosecution gets to call their first witness, a witness likely known to many of you who have been following the Epstein saga: Larry Visoski, Epstein’s private pilot. This is also when you will start seeing references to the electronic exhibits (i.e. “can you please pull up Government Exhibit 112”) and also the binders of exhibits that are on paper.
As the direct examination of Mr. Visoski starts, and just like in all those courtroom dramas in the movies and on tv, the government attorney (Ms. Comey) who is examining him asks:
—
Q. Would you recognize Ms. Maxwell if you saw her again today?
A. Yes.
Q. Looking around the courtroom here today, do you see her?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you please point her out and identify an article of clothing she’s wearing?
A. Ms. Maxwell is over in the far corner with the white sweater on and the dark hair.
MS. COMEY: Would the record please reflect, your Honor, that the witness has identified the defendant.
—
Yes, that’s really how it happens in real life.
Then Comey walks him through the procedures for a flight (who notified him that a flight needed to be scheduled, how did they notify him, how did he get the names of any passengers), as well as having him list all of Epstein’s residences and which ones he’d visited. Then she has him describe Epstein’s Palm Beach house, and his Manhattan house.
What’s noticeable here is that Ms. Comey hasn’t asked him *anything* about any of the passengers on the plane. That’s because it’s now about 5:00pm, and so court will adjourn for the day. But *tomorrow*, oh, tomorrow – the direct examination of Larry Visoski continues, and that’s when we get into the passengers.
Notes from the Front members: The Day 1 trial transcript is in your inbox now. You can join the interactive member chat about this series here: https://tinyurl.com/NFTF-chat
(A tinyurl link because the actual Substack link is ridiculously long.)
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can get in on this 22-part Maxwell Trial explainer series, as well as stop relying on this platform’s algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you’ll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/the-maxwell-epstein-trial-series
Don’t have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite – it’s like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://notesfromthefront.fyi
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the words “summer camp”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about summer camp! ;~)
Source