MR. ROHRBACH
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
90 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Gill Velez
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Co counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Supervisory Investigator Brown
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Representation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
William Brown
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Tracy Chapell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Janine Gill Velez | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Briefing on Government Exhibit 52. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding witness recall and sequestration violations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Paul Kane | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lisa Rocchio | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of WILLIAM BROWN by Mr. Rohrbach, starting on page 2042. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Examination of witness Tracy Chapell, including direct examination and cross-examination, as part... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Direct examination of witness DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by Mr. Rohrbach. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A court hearing took place where the disclosure of expert witness opinions was discussed. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Deadline | A deadline was set for the defense to provide the opinions of their expert witness. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Direct examination of witness JANINE GILL VELEZ by Mr. Rohrbach. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between the judge and attorneys regarding the admissibility of evidence and... | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court hearing involving cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 2 into evidence | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing (filing date) regarding the admissibility of evidence (contact book vs household ma... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically discussing Instr... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of court document 761 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion of Exhibits 823 and 824 | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) discussing legal text and jury instructions. | Southern District (New York) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018361.jpg
This document is a single page (page 24 of 261) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, relating to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange where the Court takes a pause, confirms that attorney Mr. Rohrbach is ready, and then orders the jury to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00018360.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a legal argument regarding the redaction of documents to protect the identity of a person referred to as 'Jane' from being cross-referenced with public records on PACER. The Judge instructs the attorneys (Ms. Moe and Mr. Rohrbach) to find a middle ground that protects witness privacy while acknowledging facts already in the public trial transcript before the jury enters.
DOJ-OGR-00018356.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and the judge. Attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, who is present in the courtroom. Sternheim contends that the attorney's role in the 'Epstein Fund' and the fact that he wrote a book about the witness's story are pertinent facts for the jury to consider during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018350.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Court. The conversation centers on the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's residence without submitting the photos as evidence. The Court reserves judgment on the admission of any photo exhibits but indicates it finds the proposed line of questioning acceptable.
DOJ-OGR-00018341.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a judge instructs a jury about an upcoming witness's testimony. The judge clarifies that because the witness was over the age of consent, her alleged sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein was not illegal under the indictment, and she is not considered a victim in this case. The jury is strictly forbidden from using this testimony to convict the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, or to infer anything about the character or criminal propensity of either Epstein or Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018323.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018101.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of three witnesses: Paul Kane, Lisa Rocchio, and Juan Patricio Alessi, detailing the attorneys who questioned them (Rohrbach, Menninger, Pomerantz, Comey) and the corresponding page numbers. It also lists various Government Exhibits (Nos. 761, 298, 297, 299, 606, 113, 114, and 2A/2C-2W) and the pages where they were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The questioning establishes that Dr. Rocchio has not personally published research or conducted metadata studies on the topic of "grooming." It also confirms his testimony relies on the work of other experts and that there is scientific disagreement within the field.
DOJ-OGR-00017893.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kane by Ms. Menninger. The questioning concerns a document describing a student as a 'self-employed interior decorator' who is represented by an agent. Defense attorney Mr. Rohrbach objects to the agent's name being read aloud, arguing lack of relevance, and the Court sustains the objection, instructing the jury to look at the document themselves instead.
DOJ-OGR-00017891.jpg
A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Rohrbach examines witness Mr. Kane regarding Government Exhibit 761, a student application for 12th grade. The testimony reveals the student's present school is the Alexander W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts, while the exhibit itself is sealed to protect the student/witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017890.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a document. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against an objection from defense counsel, stating that the document qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school because it was integrated into their files and relied upon, despite a witness's testimony questioning its reliability. The judge ultimately overrules the objection, allowing the document into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017887.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Kane by Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony focuses on establishing the business records foundation for documents from the 'Professional Children's School,' specifically detailing how applications are reviewed, how families are contacted, and confirming that records are retained in the ordinary course of business. Following this testimony, the government moves to offer an exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records the direct examination of a witness, Kane, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding the authentication of an enrollment application for the Professional Children's School, marked as Government Exhibit 761. An opposing attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects on the grounds of hearsay, but the court overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Paul Kane by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. Mr. Kane identifies himself as the director of finance for the Professional Children's School in New York City and provides a brief description of the school's history and purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00017880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures the court resuming session, with the judge addressing the jury and counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, then calls Paul Kane as the next witness to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00017878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) before a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a 'contact book' versus a 'household manual,' with the government arguing that the contact book belongs to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and/or Jeffrey Epstein and constitutes statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy. The judge acknowledges the government's argument regarding the hearsay exception.
DOJ-OGR-00017876.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over the admissibility of a household manual and a contact book. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues the items are not being offered for the truth of their contents to avoid hearsay objections, while the opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, counters by raising issues of relevance. The discussion revolves around legal rules of evidence, specifically sections 803(6) and 901.
DOJ-OGR-00017873.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses JANE, MATT, and DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers. The index also lists Defendant and Government exhibits that were received into evidence and their respective page numbers in the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00017871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and prosecutors Ms. Comey and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the scheduling of arguments related to 'piercing privilege' and 'waiver' concerning a witness named Jane. The parties also discuss the timeline of the trial, with the government estimating they have about one more week of testimony before resting.
DOJ-OGR-00017866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Besselsen, who identifies a document as an application to an arts camp from the summer of 1996. The witness confirms that an address on the document appears to be different from another address they were viewing, after which one attorney concludes questioning and another, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination.
Insurance records
Mr. Rohrbach states he will 'go have a conversation with Ms. Gill about this' (referring to records).
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding whether personnel forms constitute hearsay or business records.
Surprise at receiving the defendant's filing.
Mr. Rohrbach mentions a letter his side sent, which indicated they were surprised to receive a filing from the defendant.
Admissibility of evidence
Mr. Rohrbach argues for the relevance and admissibility of a phone number and Mar-a-Lago personnel records, explaining the expected testimony of Ms. Gill to establish them as business records.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of a personnel action notice for Sky Roberts.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
Direct Examination
Legal examination in court
Direct Examination
Testimony regarding employment at FedEx and knowledge of billing invoice generation.
Verification of forms at Mar-a-Lago
Mr. Rohrbach interviewed Ms. Gill regarding whether Mar-a-Lago independently verifies information on forms.
Argument for admitting Exhibit 52
Mr. Rohrbach states a plan to submit a letter on the night of the hearing to articulate the theory for why the Court should admit Exhibit 52 based on current evidence.
Jury instructions on 'dominant purpose'
Mr. Rohrbach argues to the judge that the law only requires a criminal purpose to be 'one of the dominant purposes' of a trip, not the sole or a sufficient purpose. He references legal precedents 'Sand' and 'Miller' to support his argument that the current instruction is not in error and that an alternative interpretation adds an unnecessary requirement.
Admissibility of testimony regarding photos in Epstein's ...
Mr. Rohrbach asks the Court for clarification regarding the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's house, without presenting the photos as exhibits. The Court indicates it sees no issue with the question but reserves judgment on admitting any exhibits.
Identification of Government Exhibit 802
Mr. Rohrbach questions witness Ms. Chapell to identify Government Exhibit 802. Ms. Chapell confirms she recognizes it as an invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account and that it is an accurate copy of a version held by FedEx.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the identity of Green Lake Lodge and authentication of photos.
Scope of evidence and examination regarding investigation...
Mr. Rohrbach argues to the court, disagreeing with Mr. Everdell, that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses about who was present during certain events, they cannot call a case agent in their direct case to question investigative steps that were not taken, citing the Watson and Brady cases.
Objection to a question
Mr. Rohrbach objects to a question on the grounds that it is attenuated from any notion of bias or motive (a '401' objection).
Witnesses observing the trial
Mr. Rohrbach confirms an understanding that witnesses testifying as victims will not observe the trial until both sides have rested.
Testimony regarding sexual abuse in New Mexico
Mr. Rohrbach clarifies that he believes witness Jane only testified to a single incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico, which was disclosed in the 3500 material and should not have been a surprise to the defense.
Expertise and research on the topic of grooming
Mr. Rohrbach questions Dr. Rocchio, who confirms he has not published his own research or conducted metadata studies on grooming. Dr. Rocchio also confirms his testimony is based on studies by other experts and acknowledges there is disagreement in the scientific literature on the topic.
Identification of Government Exhibit 802
Mr. Rohrbach questions Ms. Chapell to identify Government Exhibit 802. She identifies it as an invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account and confirms it is an accurate copy of a version held by FedEx.
Identification of Government Exhibit 802
Mr. Rohrbach questions Ms. Chapell to identify Government Exhibit 802. She identifies it as an invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account and confirms it is an accurate copy of a version held by FedEx.
Update on factual development and witness Brian
Mr. Rohrbach informs the court that the government could not complete its factual investigation by 6 o'clock, was unable to speak with Jane, and has decided not to call Brian as a witness.
Government Exhibits 21 and 22
Mr. Rohrbach questions Supervisory Investigator Brown about Government Exhibit 22, an image capture from an ID card application. Brown confirms it depicts the same person as in Exhibit 21 and explains the record is stored in a DMV photosystem database.
Argument against defendant's motion regarding enticement ...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that the defendant's motion should be denied because the defendant enticed Jane to travel to New York by building a relationship with her and playing on her hopes and desires, which fits the legal definition of enticement.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the definition of persuasion, inducement, and enticement to travel.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity