Lara Pomerantz
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Name | Lara Pomerantz; also identified in professional records as Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz |
| Epstein-related role | Federal prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell |
| Office during the Maxwell prosecution | U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York |
| Principal criminal case | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 |
| Distinctive pretrial record | October 2020 digital-evidence review memorandum and April 12, 2021 sworn affirmation opposing release on bail |
| Trial opening | Delivered the government’s opening statement on November 29, 2021 |
| Witness examinations | Lisa Rocchio, Kate, Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan and Janice Swain; cross-examination of Elizabeth Loftus and Michael Aznaran |
| Post-trial role | March 7, 2022 declaration supporting an immunity order for the juror inquiry |
| Outcome | Jury returned five guilty verdicts and one acquittal; Maxwell received a 20-year prison sentence |
| Later case status | Direct appeal affirmed in 2024; Supreme Court review denied in 2025; Section 2255 petition denied August 25, 2026 |
| Professional-status caution | This article dates her prosecution roles; later DOJ material identifies her on the Nadine Menendez prosecution team in September 2025 |
| Last checked | October 7, 2026 |
The Maxwell trial transcript identifies Lara Pomerantz’s individual courtroom work, beginning with the prosecution’s opening statement on November 29, 2021. Her role extended beyond appearing in a four-lawyer signature block. She submitted a sworn affirmation in a bail appeal, helped establish procedures for reviewing seized electronic evidence, examined survivor and expert witnesses, challenged defense testimony, and supplied the declaration supporting a post-verdict juror-immunity application.
The Justice Department’s sentencing announcement names Pomerantz with Maurene Comey, Alison Moe and Andrew Rohrbach as the prosecutors responsible for the case. The team credit is distinct from evidence of what each lawyer personally said or filed. This account uses dated documents and examination headings to separate Pomerantz’s individual work from collective prosecution positions and judicial decisions.
Her statements in court were advocacy, even when forceful. A sworn prosecutorial affirmation also combined procedural history, government proffers, descriptions of other records and legal argument. Neither form should be treated as a judge’s ruling or as an independent witness account of the underlying abuse.
Important Points
- Pomerantz represented the United States in Maxwell’s case. She did not represent Epstein, Maxwell or the survivors as private civil counsel.
- The prosecutor is Lara Pomerantz. Records concerning Mark Pomerantz’s separate legal career are not evidence about her.
- An October 19, 2020 memorandum names Pomerantz, Comey and Moe as authors of a protocol for reviewing image and video files from seized Epstein devices. It describes review boundaries and discovery handling; it does not show Pomerantz personally examined every file.
- Pomerantz’s April 12, 2021 affirmation opposed Maxwell’s appeals from the December 28, 2020 and March 22, 2021 bail denials. The Second Circuit separately affirmed those orders on April 27, 2021.
- Her opening statement presented a prosecution theory of grooming, trust, sexualized massages and Maxwell’s facilitating role. An opening statement forecasts evidence; it is not evidence itself.
- She directly examined psychology expert Lisa Rocchio, the witness using the pseudonym Kate, and Annie Farmer. She also examined Farmer’s former boyfriend and mother as corroborating witnesses.
- The judge placed limits on how the jury could use Kate’s testimony and Farmer’s account of physical contact in New Mexico. Those limits remain important even when summarizing a successful prosecution.
- Pomerantz cross-examined defense memory expert Elizabeth Loftus on her work, compensation and the limits of laboratory studies. The exchange did not amount to a judicial finding that all memory science was invalid.
- The March 7, 2022 immunity application is an unusually clear example of her personal sworn role. The juror later testified under immunity, but Judge Nathan, rather than Pomerantz, conducted the hearing’s questioning and decided the new-trial issue.
- Maxwell’s later unsuccessful appeals and collateral challenge should be included as case outcomes, without automatically attributing every later filing to the original trial prosecutors.
Evidence Appearances
| Record | Date | Pomerantz’s documented role | Meaning and limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA01653601 through EFTA01653603 | October 19, 2020 | Named with Comey and Moe on digital-evidence review protocol | Documents the team’s protocol, not proof of every individual review action |
| Second Circuit No. 21-770, Document 40-1 | April 12, 2021 | Sworn declarant opposing appeals from bail denials | Government account and advocacy, not the appellate ruling |
| Second Circuit No. 21-58, Document 58-1 | April 12, 2021 | Parallel filing of the same 25-page affirmation | A second docket appearance, not a second independent affidavit |
| EFTA00089465, page 12 | April 27, 2021 order | Records the appeal outcome in the detention litigation | Court affirms detention and directs sleep-condition requests to the district court |
| Trial Document 741, volume 1 | November 29, 2021 | Government opening statement | Forecast of expected proof, not sworn testimony |
| Trial Document 747, volume 4 | December 2, 2021 | Direct and redirect examination of Lisa Rocchio | General expert testimony; Rocchio had not interviewed the case witnesses |
| Trial Document 751, volume 6 | December 6, 2021 | Direct and redirect examination of Kate | Testimony admitted with limits; pseudonym remains protected |
| Trial Document 759, volume 10 | December 10, 2021 | Farmer, Mulligan and Swain examinations | Accounts have different scopes and were subject to cross-examination |
| Trial Document 761, volume 11 | December 16, 2021 | Cross-examination of Loftus; later cross-examination of Aznaran | Challenges to expert and travel-record evidence, not findings by Pomerantz |
| Document 632 | March 7, 2022 | Declaration supporting witness-immunity application | Application and attached proposed order must be distinguished from the effective court order |
| Second Circuit opinion, No. 22-1426 | September 17, 2024 | Later review of the case she helped prosecute | Judicial outcome, not evidence that she authored the appeal |
| Maxwell v. United States, Document 10 | August 25, 2026 | Later collateral-review outcome | Denies Section 2255 relief; does not establish her personal participation in that proceeding |
Role Within the Federal Prosecution
The official June 2022 sentencing release identifies the four trial prosecutors and the office units handling the case. Pomerantz’s work appears throughout the public docket, but a counsel list alone does not establish which lawyer prepared a particular document, chose a witness or made an investigative decision. The most useful evidence of individual responsibility consists of her sworn declarations and the transcript passages expressly identifying her as the examining attorney.
Earlier DOJ material identified Pomerantz on another federal sex-trafficking prosecution in August 2016. The Maxwell case therefore was not her first professional involvement in this area. That background helps explain her role without requiring a lengthy unrelated biography or treating an earlier charging announcement as proof that every defendant in that separate case was convicted.
DOJ continued to identify her as an assistant U.S. attorney in September 2025, in its Nadine Menendez sentencing announcement. That dated reference is useful professional context. It does not make an old Maxwell appearance list an up-to-date directory of the entire prosecution team, and it does not establish a continuing personal assignment to every Epstein-related release or later court dispute.
The courtroom record should also distinguish her name from transcription errors. Some records and automated extractions vary between Lara and Laura or misread the letters in her name. Her own affirmation identifies her as Lara Pomerantz. These variations do not justify importing the history of a different lawyer with the same surname.
The October 2020 Digital-Evidence Protocol
EFTA01653601 is a three-page memorandum addressed to the Epstein case file and dated October 19, 2020. Its author line names Comey, Moe and Pomerantz. It describes a June 26, 2020 warrant authorizing review of data from 62 devices seized in searches of Epstein’s New York and Virgin Islands properties, and explains how the prosecution intended to review image and video files for material responsive to that warrant.
The memorandum separated privilege review, responsiveness review and production to the defense. It required reviewers to read the warrant and supporting affidavit before beginning. It set a target of completing the review by October 31 to permit preparation for the November 9 discovery deadline. Those were the protocol’s operational dates, not proof that every task was actually completed on schedule.
The listed responsive categories included material depicting Epstein or Maxwell, certain material concerning females, and travel documents. Responsive material containing nudity was to receive more restrictive handling, with secure FBI storage and arrangements for defense review. Other responsive material was to be produced as confidential discovery. The document thus records both investigative work and privacy-related controls.
The final instructions required the U.S. Attorney’s Office to delete or return its copies of full image and video collections after the review and required the FBI to restrict access to full extractions. Further review of material not identified as responsive would require a new warrant. This is a description of access and copy-management restrictions in the protocol. It is not evidence that the original seized devices were destroyed or that incriminating evidence was deliberately eliminated.
For Pomerantz’s profile, the memorandum is significant because it connects her to the practical management of a large electronic-evidence review. Its joint author line does not show that she personally performed every review, devised every category or made every subsequent discovery decision.
The April 12, 2021 Bail Affirmation
Document 40-1 in Second Circuit case 21-770 opens with Pomerantz declaring under penalty of perjury that she represented the United States and was submitting the affirmation in opposition to Maxwell’s appeal of orders denying pretrial release. The same 25-page document appeared as Document 58-1 in the related appeal, 21-58. The filings should not be counted as two independent sworn accounts.
The affirmation addressed Judge Alison Nathan’s December 28, 2020 and March 22, 2021 orders. It distinguished them from the initial July 14, 2020 detention decision, which Maxwell had not appealed in those proceedings. It described the developing indictment, the government’s evidence proffers, Maxwell’s renewed bail packages and the district court’s reasoning about flight risk.
Pomerantz argued that the district court had not clearly erred in finding that no proposed conditions would reasonably assure Maxwell’s appearance. Among the subjects discussed were international ties, access to substantial resources, the court’s concerns about incomplete financial disclosures, proposed citizenship renunciations, and proposed monitoring of assets. Those were contested detention issues, not a trial determination of guilt.
The affirmation also opposed temporary release to prepare the defense. It cited the government’s accounts of discovery access and communications with counsel and argued that the district judge had actively supervised accommodations. Maxwell disputed the adequacy of detention conditions and preparation opportunities. An account of this litigation should attribute both positions rather than presenting Pomerantz’s description of confinement as a neutral inspection report.
The actual April 27, 2021 appellate order affirmed the two detention orders and denied bail or temporary release. It added that a request specifically addressing sleep conditions should be directed to the district court. The appellate result therefore did not resolve every possible complaint about confinement; it resolved the release issues before that panel.
A later May 27 opposition listed Pomerantz with the other prosecutors but was signed by Comey. That difference illustrates why the April 12 affirmation is stronger evidence of Pomerantz’s personal declarant role than an ordinary multi-lawyer filing. The public record supports substantial involvement without assigning every detention argument to her alone.
Opening the Trial on November 29, 2021
The first trial volume records Pomerantz delivering the government’s opening. She began with the witness identified as Jane and described the prosecution’s expected evidence of a relationship that began when Jane was a teenager. The opening then connected this account to a broader theory: access to vulnerable girls, promises of opportunity, cultivation of trust, normalization of sexual contact and the use of purported massages to facilitate abuse.
Pomerantz described Maxwell as an active participant rather than someone merely present in Epstein’s social circle. She forecast evidence about household authority, travel, staff instructions and corroborating documents. She also told the jury that some witnesses had received compensation from Epstein’s estate, anticipating a subject the defense would use in attacking credibility.
The opening’s importance is its structure. It explained how prosecutors intended to connect personal testimony with logistics and records and why Maxwell’s conduct, rather than Epstein’s notoriety alone, was at issue. It was still an opening statement. The jurors had to assess the evidence actually admitted, the defense’s responses and the judge’s instructions before reaching a verdict.
The defense disputed the government’s account, emphasizing association with Epstein, passage of time, memory and financial incentives. Pomerantz’s objections during the defense opening were resolved by the judge. Those exchanges show an adversarial trial, not a one-sided evidentiary presentation in which a prosecutor’s characterization automatically became an established fact.
Lisa Rocchio: Explaining Grooming Without Diagnosing the Witnesses
The December 2 transcript identifies Pomerantz as the attorney conducting Lisa Rocchio’s direct examination. Rocchio was presented as a clinical and forensic psychologist with expertise in traumatic stress and interpersonal violence. The court qualified her as an expert after Pomerantz established her professional background.
Pomerantz then made an important limitation explicit. Rocchio had not interviewed the witnesses, did not know who they were, had not received specific case details from the government, and had no personal knowledge of the facts. Her testimony concerned general patterns of grooming and responses to childhood sexual abuse, rather than a diagnosis of a particular witness or a scientific determination that Maxwell was guilty.
The examination addressed the cultivation of trust, isolation, gradual boundary changes, coercion and delayed disclosure. This evidence was relevant to evaluating behavior that jurors might otherwise misunderstand, such as continued contact with an abuser. It did not eliminate the need for the jury to decide whether particular events occurred.
The transcript also supplies a useful example of a ruling limiting the prosecution. On redirect, Pomerantz asked whether abuse in another adult’s presence constituted grooming of the environment. The defense objected that the question exceeded the scope of cross-examination, and Nathan sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard the answer. The excluded response should not be repackaged as admitted expert proof.
Kate’s Testimony and the Limits of Its Use
On December 6, Pomerantz examined Kate, a witness who testified under a court-protected pseudonym. The examination expressly established that Kate was not her real name and that she had requested anonymity. Identifying records were handled under seal. Those protections should be preserved in secondary accounts.
Kate described meeting Maxwell as a teenager and later encounters involving Maxwell and Epstein. Pomerantz elicited testimony concerning introductions, purported massage arrangements, gifts, travel and the relationship’s continuation. The defense questioned dates, later communications, compensation and the reliability of recollections. Pomerantz’s redirect returned to the witness’s explanations for aspects of that history.
Before the examination, the court instructed the jury on limits to the testimony. The alleged sexual contact in London was not itself the charged illegal sexual activity on which the jury could convict. The testimony could be considered for relevant purposes under the court’s instructions, rather than as proof of a general bad character or propensity to commit crimes.
This distinction is particularly important in a prosecutor’s profile. Pomerantz’s examination helped present the government’s account of methods and relationships, but it did not expand the indictment by itself. Kate’s testimony and Jane’s testimony concerned different experiences and were handled by different direct-examining attorneys. They should not be merged into a single survivor narrative.
Annie Farmer and Corroborating Witnesses
The December 10 transcript and its examination index establish Pomerantz’s direct and redirect examinations of Annie Farmer, followed by her examinations of David James Mulligan and Janice Swain. The index identifies the starting transcript pages as 2049 for Farmer, 2231 for Mulligan and 2247 for Swain.
Farmer testified about her teenage contact with Epstein, the New Mexico trip and physical contact she attributed to Maxwell. Pomerantz used documents and photographs in presenting the chronology. Farmer’s account was then tested in cross-examination, including questions concerning her memories, later statements and financial claims.
Judge Nathan’s limiting instruction preceded Farmer’s testimony. The jury was told that the alleged physical contact with Epstein and Maxwell in New Mexico was not the illegal sexual activity as charged in the indictment. It could consider relevant testimony for the issues before it, but could not use it as character or propensity evidence. A summary that simply labels every described New Mexico act a charged offense would misstate the trial.
Mulligan, Farmer’s former boyfriend, and Swain, her mother, supplied different kinds of corroborative testimony. Their knowledge was limited to their own observations and communications. Swain acknowledged on cross-examination that she had never met or spoken with Maxwell; her account of assurances about another adult being present came from Epstein. That boundary matters when describing the support their evidence offered for Farmer’s testimony.
Pomerantz’s work across these witnesses demonstrates a structured presentation of a survivor’s account together with surrounding evidence. It does not justify treating corroborating witnesses as eyewitnesses to events they did not observe or assigning the jury’s ultimate conclusions to the examining lawyer.
Cross-Examining Elizabeth Loftus and Michael Aznaran
The December 16 transcript records Pomerantz’s cross-examination of defense expert Elizabeth Loftus, beginning at transcript page 2454. Loftus had testified about memory, suggestion and post-event information. Pomerantz questioned her experience as a defense consultant and witness, her book, her compensation and the relationship between the studies she discussed and the allegations being tried.
The cross-examination explored the difference between changing a detail of a remembered event and creating an entire false event. Pomerantz asked about laboratory examples involving traffic scenes, a shopping mall and other experimental settings. She also elicited acknowledgments that people can retain core features of traumatic experiences and that repetition can strengthen memory. Loftus qualified several answers and explained the context of her work.
The exchange should be described as a challenge to the application and weight of expert evidence. It was not a ruling that false memories never occur, that all survivor memories are necessarily accurate, or that laboratory research is worthless. The judge ruled on particular objections and limited the use of some details. The jury remained responsible for assessing the testimony.
Pomerantz later cross-examined defense witness Michael Aznaran, whose testimony concerned government travel records. Her questions explored the completeness of the records, especially historical reporting practices. The defense’s redirect returned to those limitations. This was a records issue: absence of an entry could not automatically establish absence of travel without understanding how the database was populated.
Together these examinations show another part of Pomerantz’s role. She did not only present affirmative prosecution testimony; she tested the defense’s proposed explanations and the foundation for inferences the defense asked the jury to draw.
The Juror Inquiry and the March 2022 Immunity Application
Document 632, filed March 7, 2022, contains the government’s application for an order compelling testimony at the planned March 8 hearing, departmental authorization, Pomerantz’s declaration and a proposed order. In her declaration, she identified herself as one of the prosecutors responsible for Maxwell’s case and stated that the witness had invoked the privilege against self-incrimination.
The application invoked 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003. Its proposed terms protected against use of compelled testimony and information derived from it, subject to exceptions including perjury and false statements. This was not a proposed blanket pardon. Pomerantz’s declarant role was a necessary part of the application’s factual support; the authority to issue an effective order belonged to the court.
The Second Circuit’s later opinion confirms that Juror 50 testified under a grant of immunity on March 8, 2022. The court examined inaccurate answers on the jury questionnaire concerning personal experience with sexual abuse. Nathan conducted the questioning, with the parties permitted to propose questions. It would be inaccurate to describe the hearing as Pomerantz personally cross-examining the juror.
Nathan credited the juror’s explanation that the inaccurate answers were inadvertent and found no basis for a new trial under the applicable standard. The Second Circuit later upheld the handling of the inquiry and denial of relief. The juror’s immunity enabled testimony; it did not itself establish the truth of that testimony or dictate the new-trial decision.
The filed application’s attached proposed order contains an incomplete date line. It should not be cited as the signed final order. Document 637 is the separate signed immunity order, dated March 8 and entered on March 9, 2022. The application, hearing and docket-entry dates are separate procedural facts.
Verdict, Sentence and Later Review
The verdict and sentencing record establish the case’s outcome. On December 29, 2021, the jury found Maxwell guilty on five of six tried counts and acquitted her on the substantive enticement count. After the post-trial treatment of overlapping conspiracy counts, the final sentencing judgment rested on three counts. Nathan imposed 20 years’ imprisonment on June 28, 2022. The severed perjury charges were dismissed rather than tried to a guilty verdict.
The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment on September 17, 2024. Its opinion addressed the Florida non-prosecution agreement, limitations arguments, the juror issue, the response to a jury note and sentencing. These were judicial rulings on Maxwell’s appellate claims, not merely the government’s preferred conclusions.
Judge Paul Engelmayer’s August 25, 2026 opinion records the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari and denies Maxwell’s subsequent Section 2255 petition. The court rejected claims based in part on newly released Epstein materials and ordered the civil collateral-review case closed. The opinion is the later outcome documented here; it should not be described as an unresolved petition.
These developments preserve the distinction between Pomerantz’s historical trial role and subsequent judicial review. The original team helped obtain the conviction. That does not establish that each original prosecutor handled every later release, appeal, prison-condition dispute or collateral filing.
Chronology
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 4, 2016 | DOJ identifies Pomerantz on a separate sex-trafficking prosecution |
| October 19, 2020 | Comey, Moe and Pomerantz named on digital-evidence review protocol |
| December 28, 2020 and March 22, 2021 | District court denies renewed Maxwell bail applications later addressed in her affirmation |
| April 12, 2021 | Pomerantz submits sworn opposition in the related bail appeals |
| April 27, 2021 | Second Circuit affirms detention orders and denies release |
| November 29, 2021 | Pomerantz delivers the government’s trial opening |
| December 2, 2021 | Direct examination of Lisa Rocchio |
| December 6, 2021 | Examination of Kate under a protected pseudonym |
| December 10, 2021 | Examinations of Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan and Janice Swain |
| December 16, 2021 | Cross-examinations of Elizabeth Loftus and Michael Aznaran |
| December 29, 2021 | Jury returns five guilty verdicts and one acquittal |
| March 7 and 8, 2022 | Immunity application followed by the juror hearing |
| June 28, 2022 | Maxwell sentenced to 20 years |
| September 17, 2024 | Judgment affirmed on direct appeal |
| September 11, 2025 | DOJ identifies Pomerantz on the Nadine Menendez prosecution team |
| August 25, 2026 | Maxwell’s Section 2255 petition denied |
Related Articles
Source List
- EFTA01653601: October 19, 2020 review protocol, three pages.
- April 12 affirmation, Document 40-1 and parallel Document 58-1: Readable reproductions of the government’s bail filing, with DOJ-OGR identifiers. DOJ’s related appeal compilation preserves the court records.
- EFTA00089465: Collection containing the April 27 appellate order at page 12.
- Second Circuit Document 73: May 27, 2021 government opposition, signed by Comey and listing the four prosecutors.
- Trial volume 1: November 29 opening, transcript pages 31 onward.
- Trial volume 4: Rocchio examination, transcript pages 699 onward and 774 redirect ruling.
- Trial volume 6: Kate examination and limiting instruction.
- Trial volume 10, DOJ-OGR-00013592 through DOJ-OGR-00013858: Farmer, Mulligan and Swain testimony and examination index.
- Trial volume 11: Loftus and Aznaran cross-examinations; readable court-document transcription.
- Document 632: March 7, 2022 immunity application and declaration; Document 637 is the separate signed order entered March 9.
- DOJ Maxwell sentencing announcement: Sentence and prosecution-team identification.
- United States v. Maxwell, Second Circuit, September 17, 2024: Appellate disposition and juror-hearing analysis.
- Maxwell v. United States, No. 25-cv-10468, Document 10: August 25, 2026 denial of collateral relief.
- DOJ’s August 2016 trafficking-case release and September 2025 Menendez release: Dated professional context.