DOJ OGR 00011205: Proposed Arrest Order for Kelly Bovino and the Withdrawn Warrant Request

UpdatedOctober 18, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

The page released as DOJ OGR 00011205 is an unsigned proposed order accompanying Ghislaine Maxwell’s request for Kelly Bovino’s arrest as a trial witness. It is Document 702 attachment 4, which the docket identifies as a proposed order (appellate Document 57, page 108 / A-104). Its proposed language would grant the request and direct the United States Marshals to bring Bovino to court. The page does not establish that Judge Alison J. Nathan signed or issued that order.

The proposed order arose during Maxwell’s criminal trial. Her lawyers said Bovino had been personally served with a defense subpoena, had stopped responding, and possessed material testimony. The defense wanted her to deny participating in sexualized group massages described by a survivor who testified under the pseudonym Jane.

The surrounding record materially limits what can be inferred from the proposed order. The subpoena commanded Bovino to appear on November 29, 2021, but the proof of service says it was served on November 30. Prosecutors opposed an arrest warrant, challenged the subpoena’s enforceability, disputed the importance of the proposed testimony, and argued that the defense had waited too long. Most importantly, the December 17 trial transcript records that Maxwell’s counsel later withdrew the application to have the Marshals arrest Bovino.

The cited proposed order does not establish judicial authorization, warrant issuance, or execution. The December 17, 2021 trial transcript records the defense withdrawing its arrest application before it rested (Document 763, PDF page 179, transcript page 2720, lines 8 through 19). No signed granting order or executed warrant has been verified in these cited materials.

Key Takeaways

DOJ OGR 00011205 is a one page unsigned proposed order bearing the date December 17, 2021.
The cited page does not establish that Judge Alison J. Nathan granted Maxwell’s request for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino.
The proposed text would direct the United States Marshals to arrest Bovino and bring her to the Southern District of New York.
Maxwell’s lawyers described Bovino as a material defense witness whose testimony would be relevant and exculpatory.
The defense intended to elicit a denial from Bovino concerning sexualized group massages described by Jane.
Prosecutors said Jane had previously identified Kelly Bovino to investigators, but they argued that the proposed denial would not properly contradict Jane’s trial testimony.
The subpoena listed an appearance date one day before the documented date of service.
Prosecutors raised that timing defect and urged the court not to issue the warrant.
The same day trial transcript records that Maxwell’s defense withdrew the arrest application.
Bovino did not testify in the completed defense case.
The released record does not show that the Marshals arrested or detained her.
The proposed order is not a judicial finding that Bovino committed a crime or participated in Epstein’s abuse.

Document Profile Chart

Field	Information
Evidence ID	DOJ OGR 00011205
Document type	Unsigned proposed order filed with a defense motion
Court	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Criminal case	United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Trial case number	20 Cr. 330 AJN
Judge	Alison J. Nathan
Date printed on proposed order	December 17, 2021
Subject	Defense request for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino
Requested direction	United States Marshals to arrest Bovino and bring her to court
Length	One page
Later docket header	Document 702 attachment 4, filed July 12, 2022, under the PAE case suffix
Authorization and execution	No signed granting order or execution verified in the cited materials
Same day development	Defense withdrew the arrest application before closing its case

What the Proposed Order Says

The proposed language would grant Maxwell’s motion and direct the United States Marshals to arrest Bovino and bring her to court. Its use of operative language does not make it an issued judicial order. The page bears no judicial signature, and the docket describes the attachment as a proposed order.

The proposed order does not explain the expected testimony, describe efforts to contact Bovino, analyze the subpoena’s dates, or address the prosecution’s objections. Those facts appear in the motion, affidavit, exhibits, opposition, and trial transcript.

The released page is neither a signed granting order nor an executed arrest warrant. It records the relief the defense sought. A verified judicial ruling or warrant record would be needed to establish that the request was granted or carried out.

Evidence Chain Chart

Evidence	Date or role	What it contributes
DOJ OGR 00011201	Defense subpoena	Names “Kelly Bovino Umekubo” and commands an appearance on November 29, 2021
DOJ OGR 00011202	Proof of service	Records personal service on November 30, 2021, according to the defense filing and prosecution response
DOJ OGR 00011363	Defense evidentiary brief	Explains the testimony Maxwell’s lawyers expected from Bovino
DOJ OGR 00011253	Government motion	Seeks to limit testimony from Bovino and two other proposed witnesses
DOJ OGR 00011197	Defense warrant motion	Requests arrest and detention to compel Bovino’s testimony
DOJ OGR 00011203	Menninger affidavit	Calls Bovino a material witness and describes failed contact efforts
DOJ OGR 00011300	Government opposition	Challenges the subpoena timing, necessity, and lateness of the request
DOJ OGR 00011205	Unsigned proposed order	States the relief requested by the defense; does not establish that it was granted
DOJ OGR 00016730	December 17 trial transcript	Records the live dispute, the court’s concerns, and the later withdrawal
DOJ OGR 00016908	Withdrawal page	Records counsel withdrawing the application to have Bovino arrested

How the Warrant Request Developed

The dispute unfolded during the last stage of Maxwell’s defense case.

Maxwell’s attorneys possessed government interview material concerning Jane by October 11, 2021. According to the defense, those materials identified a woman named Kelly whom Jane believed could support what she had told investigators about Maxwell. The defense later identified that person as Kelly Bovino.

The subpoena in DOJ OGR 00011201 uses the name “Kelly Bovino Umekubo.” It commands her to appear at 9:00 a.m. on November 29, 2021, the first day of trial. The defense said a process server personally served her on November 30.

The defense told the court that it tried to contact Bovino after service, attempted to place her on call as a witness, and received no response. On the morning of December 17, counsel raised the problem in court and said intervention by the Marshals appeared necessary. Judge Nathan directed the defense to file an application quickly because the trial would not be delayed.

The defense filed its warrant motion and an affidavit from attorney Laura Menninger. Prosecutors filed an opposition. The defense materials included the unsigned proposed order later filed as Document 702 attachment 4. That attachment does not establish that Nathan granted the motion.

Later that day, before the defense rested, the parties returned to court. The transcript records Judge Nathan confirming that the defense was withdrawing its request. Menninger answered that the application to have the Marshals arrest Bovino for nonappearance was withdrawn.

Procedural Timeline Chart

Date	Event	Evidence
October 11, 2021	Defense says it received interview material relevant to Bovino	DOJ OGR 00016730
November 2021	Subpoena issued by the clerk	DOJ OGR 00011201
November 29, 2021	Appearance date printed on subpoena	DOJ OGR 00011201
November 30, 2021	Defense says Bovino was personally served	DOJ OGR 00011202 and DOJ OGR 00011203
December 15, 2021	Government moves to restrict proposed testimony from Bovino and other witnesses	DOJ OGR 00011253
December 16, 2021	Defense argues Bovino should be allowed to testify	DOJ OGR 00011363
Morning of December 17, 2021	Defense tells court a subpoenaed witness is unresponsive	DOJ OGR 00016730
December 17, 2021	Defense files warrant motion and affidavit	DOJ OGR 00011197 and DOJ OGR 00011203
December 17, 2021	Government opposes the request	DOJ OGR 00011300
December 17, 2021	Defense supplies proposed arrest order; the cited page does not establish a judicial grant	DOJ OGR 00011205
Later December 17, 2021	Defense withdraws arrest application and completes its case without Bovino	DOJ OGR 00016908
December 29, 2021	Jury finds Maxwell guilty on five counts	United States Attorney’s Office sentencing summary
July 12, 2022	Motion papers and the proposed order are filed publicly as docket attachments	Headers on Documents 702, 702 attachment 3, 702 attachment 4, 706, 713, and 723

Why Maxwell’s Defense Wanted Bovino

The warrant request cannot be understood without Jane’s testimony and the competing descriptions of Bovino’s expected evidence.

Jane testified under a court approved pseudonym. On cross examination, Maxwell’s lawyers asked about people Jane had mentioned to investigators. The filings say Jane remembered a woman named Kelly, remembered Kelly’s last name, described her as an older model, and said Kelly could support what she had discussed regarding Maxwell.

The defense brief in DOJ OGR 00011363 says Jane had identified the woman to investigators as Kelly Bovino. Maxwell’s lawyers represented that Bovino would not support Jane’s account of sexualized group massages. They argued that this denial would contradict Jane and directly concern the conduct at issue in the case.

That was an advocacy position, not testimony from Bovino. Bovino did not take the stand, so the public trial record contains no sworn denial from her and no cross examination testing what the defense expected her to say.

The Government’s Position

Prosecutors took two related positions.

First, they sought to restrict the proposed testimony. In DOJ OGR 00011253, the government said Jane had previously told investigators that Kelly Bovino was involved in group sexualized encounters. Prosecutors nevertheless argued that a denial from Bovino would not properly contradict Jane’s testimony before the jury because the defense had not elicited Bovino’s full name or a firm identification during Jane’s trial testimony. They also argued that the issue concerned collateral adult sexual activity and could confuse the jury.

Second, prosecutors opposed the arrest request itself. Their filing in DOJ OGR 00011300 identified several objections:

The subpoena required an appearance on November 29 but was not served until November 30.
The defense had possessed the relevant interview material since October.
The defense waited until the expected final day of its case to alert the court.
Bovino was believed to be in California, making arrest and transport likely to delay the trial.
Prosecutors considered the proposed testimony cumulative of testimony sought from two other witnesses.
The trial was proceeding during the pandemic and before holiday breaks.

The unsigned proposed order does not resolve the government’s objections. The cited page supplies no basis to say that Nathan overruled them and granted the request.

The Subpoena Date Problem

The most visible procedural defect is contained in the defense’s own exhibits.

Subpoena field	Recorded date
Required court appearance	November 29, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
Personal service	November 30, 2021
Difference	Service occurred one day after the commanded appearance

The government argued that Bovino could not have disobeyed a command before receiving it. Its opposition therefore questioned whether she was validly under subpoena for purposes of the requested arrest.

The defense described later efforts to contact Bovino and represented that she would not appear. The proposed order does not establish that the court resolved the date mismatch or accepted another legal basis for arrest. The trial transcript instead records withdrawal of the application.

The date mismatch limits any assertion that the subpoena and proposed order establish a straightforward refusal to obey a valid command on November 29.

The Statutory Citation Problem

The motion invoked several possible sources of authority, including the court’s inherent authority, contempt power, the recalcitrant witness statute, and the federal material witness statute.

The defense letter correctly identifies the material witness provision as 18 U.S.C. § 3144. Menninger’s attached affidavit, however, is captioned as an affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 3144 and repeats that citation in its final paragraph. Title 28 does not contain the material witness statute invoked by the motion. The operative provision is in Title 18.

The proposed order does not cite either statute. It is proposed relief, not a ruling selecting a legal basis for arrest. The supporting affidavit’s citation mismatch should be identified as a drafting error rather than silently corrected in a quotation.

What the Same Day Withdrawal Changes

The transcript’s withdrawal entry must be read alongside the one page proposed order.

At transcript page 2720, released as DOJ OGR 00016908, Judge Nathan asks whether the application concerning “the witness Kelly” has been withdrawn. Menninger confirms that it has. When the judge asks for precision, counsel identifies it as the application to have the Marshals arrest Kelly Bovino for nonappearance under the subpoena.

The transcript then moves to the parties’ agreement to complete the evidence without further defense witnesses or a government rebuttal case. Maxwell declined to testify. Bovino did not appear as a witness.

The cited records show a request, an unsigned proposed order, and withdrawal of the request. They do not verify an intervening signed granting order or issued warrant. A claim about transmission, cancellation, or execution would require additional court or Marshals records.

The supported sequence is that Maxwell’s defense requested Bovino’s arrest, submitted proposed order language, and then withdrew the application. The cited records do not establish that Nathan granted a warrant or that Bovino was arrested.

Request, Proposed Order, Arrest, and Testimony Chart

Proposition	Status	Evidentiary basis
Defense asked for Bovino’s arrest	Confirmed	DOJ OGR 00011197
Judge granted the request	Not established by the cited proposed order	DOJ OGR 00011205
Judge directed the Marshals to arrest Bovino	Not established by the cited proposed order	DOJ OGR 00011205
A separate warrant form was publicly released with this set	Not identified	The reviewed sequence includes an unsigned proposed order, not a verified issued or executed warrant
Marshals located Bovino	Not established	No reviewed return or transcript entry confirms it
Bovino was arrested	Not established	No reviewed arrest record or testimony confirms it
Bovino was transported to New York	Not established	No reviewed record confirms transport
Bovino testified	No	Defense completed its case without her
Defense withdrew the arrest application	Confirmed	DOJ OGR 00016908

Docket and Release Provenance

The proposed order presents two layers of case information.

The embedded caption uses 20 Cr. 330 AJN, and the proposed text bears the date December 17, 2021. The electronic header identifies Document 702 attachment 4, filed July 12, 2022, under a PAE suffix. Neither the date nor the judge’s initials in a case number substitutes for a signed or entered ruling.

The dates identify the trial request and its later public docket filing. They do not establish that an order was made on either date. The docket’s description of attachment 4 as a proposed order is essential to interpreting the page.

The printed evidence stamp is DOJ OGR 00011205. OGR refers to the Department of Justice Office of Government Relations production prefix used for this release. Epstein Data describes DOJ OGR as a House Oversight and Justice Department document group, distinct from the EFTA numbered production.

Evidentiary Significance

The proposed order and surrounding record are significant for three reasons.

First, it confirms that Maxwell’s defense considered Bovino important enough to seek federal arrest authority during trial. The defense linked her expected testimony to statements by Jane and characterized it as exculpatory.

Second, the surrounding filings preserve a contested identification. The government said Jane had named Kelly Bovino in an earlier interview. The defense intended to call Bovino to deny the conduct. Because Bovino did not testify, the jury did not hear or evaluate that proposed denial.

Third, the record illustrates the difference between proposed relief and judicial action. Reading the proposed text as a signed order creates a false impression of authorization. The transcript confirms withdrawal of the application; it does not turn the proposed text into an issued order.

The record should therefore be used to document process, not to manufacture conclusions about guilt, complicity, or arrest.

Survivor Centered Reading

Jane’s account concerned sexual abuse and exploitation. The government and defense filings discuss her credibility in adversarial terms because they were litigating what evidence the jury could hear. Their arguments are not neutral factual summaries.

The defense’s representation that Bovino would deny participation does not itself disprove Jane’s account. A proposed witness denial is not evidence until the witness testifies under oath and can be questioned. That never occurred here.

The government’s statement that Jane identified Bovino in an interview is also not a judicial finding that Bovino participated in abuse. The proposed order concerns a request for compulsory attendance and is not a finding about the underlying allegation.

Maxwell was convicted on December 29, 2021, after Bovino did not testify. In June 2022, Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 20 years in prison for her role in a scheme with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually exploit and abuse minor girls.

What the Evidence Establishes

Kelly Bovino Umekubo was named in a defense trial subpoena.
The subpoena printed an appearance date of November 29, 2021.
The defense represented that personal service occurred on November 30, 2021.
Maxwell’s lawyers said Bovino stopped responding and did not appear.
The defense described her as a material witness with relevant and exculpatory testimony.
The defense expected Bovino to deny participating in sexualized group massages described by Jane.
The government said Jane had previously identified Kelly Bovino during an interview.
Prosecutors opposed both the proposed testimony and the arrest request.
The defense submitted proposed order language seeking Bovino’s arrest on December 17, 2021.
The defense later withdrew the application to have the Marshals arrest Bovino.
The defense completed its case without Bovino’s testimony.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

That Bovino was arrested.
That a warrant was executed.
That Bovino was detained or transported to New York.
Why Bovino did not respond to the defense.
Whether Bovino received a corrected subpoena after the November date mismatch.
Whether Bovino intended to invoke a constitutional privilege.
What Bovino would actually have said under oath.
That the court accepted the defense’s description of her proposed testimony as true.
That the court found Jane’s account unreliable.
That the court found Bovino participated in abuse.
That the proposed witness order was a criminal charge, conviction, or judicial finding against Bovino.

Questions for Further Investigation

Is there a signed or entered ruling resolving the defense’s arrest application before it was withdrawn?
Did the court formally cancel or vacate any warrant after the defense withdrew its application?
Is there a Marshals Service return showing attempted or completed execution?
Did Bovino or an attorney communicate with the court, prosecutors, or defense after December 17?
Was a corrected subpoena ever issued with a valid future appearance date?
What precise contact efforts did the defense make after November 30?
What additional correspondence explains the defense’s withdrawal of the application?
Did the parties reach a stipulation that made Bovino’s appearance unnecessary?
Are there sealed docket entries that clarify the withdrawal or warrant status?
Do the complete court file or Marshals records establish whether any warrant was issued?
What original interview reports support the competing descriptions of Jane’s statements?
Why does the Menninger affidavit cite 28 U.S.C. § 3144 instead of 18 U.S.C. § 3144?
Was the November 29 appearance date a clerical mistake, and did Bovino understand a later appearance was demanded?

Related Evidence

Sources

Unsigned proposed order: Document 702 attachment 4, one page; docket entry 702, appellate Document 57, page 108 / A-104; December 17, 2021 trial transcript, Document 763, PDF page 179 / transcript page 2720, lines 8 through 19.

DOJ-OGR-00011205 Download

PostedSeptember 19, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Tags: