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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding expert witness testimony scope | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of witness Mr. Kane regarding a student application. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 761 under seal. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussion regarding Rule 15 and witness unavailability due to COVID-19. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell context implie... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine M... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 823 (GX-823) into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury deliberations and exhibits. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing the wording of Count Five and charges related to 'Carolyn'. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/filing discussing jury instructions regarding sex trafficking charges. | Courtroom (implied Southern... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Trial resumption without jury present to discuss procedural matters regarding Rule 16/608 and wit... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding scheduling of legal briefs during trial. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony of Ms. Chapell regarding FedEx records. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing redaction procedures for a letter and Exhibit A, while waiting for juror... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Direct examination of witness Mr. Besselsen in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 761. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings (sidebar or pre-jury session) regarding evidence admissibility. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Afternoon Court Session | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing motions to preclude testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding evidentiary objections (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013302.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court and prosecutors Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of 'Exhibit 52' and the lack of further witnesses for it. The prosecution plans to submit a letter arguing for the exhibit's admission based on current evidence before the court goes into recess.
DOJ-OGR-00013300.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Court and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss the admissibility of government exhibits linking Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) to Mar-a-Lago through her father, Sky Roberts. The prosecution argues that Sky Roberts' employment records at Mar-a-Lago corroborate testimony that Maxwell met Virginia Roberts there.
DOJ-OGR-00013298.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal debate regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 761, an application to the Professional Children's School for a minor referred to as 'Jane.' The prosecution and the Judge discuss whether the document is admissible as a business record, specifically noting that the application listed Jeffrey Epstein as a financial guarantor, which the Court deemed relevant to show the family's perception of Epstein's financial support.
DOJ-OGR-00013297.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the defense (Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824) and hearsay concerns. The prosecution mentions Ms. Gill, the head of HR for Mar-a-Lago, noting she has reviewed a specific employment file relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013295.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach (Gov) and Sternheim (Defense) argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of insurance forms and medical billing records related to Mar-a-Lago. The debate centers on whether a form filled out by 'Mr. Roberts' constitutes hearsay and if a witness, Ms. Gill, can testify to practices that occurred before her employment began.
DOJ-OGR-00013294.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) in the case USA v. Maxwell. The Court and attorneys discuss the admissibility of Mar-a-Lago personnel records (Exhibits 823 and 824) intended to prove that Virginia Roberts was the daughter and dependent of an employee, Mr. Roberts. The debate centers on whether the employee-filled forms constitute hearsay or admissible business records verified by the employer.
DOJ-OGR-00013293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Sternheim (Defense), and Mr. Rohrbach (Government) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824, identified as insurance cards). The Judge cites *United States v. Lieberman* as relevant case law while the court waits for a delayed juror.
DOJ-OGR-00013292.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a minor issue with the fourth witness, identified as Mr. Rogers. The parties agree to resolve the issue during a break, and the court adjourns until the jury is present.
DOJ-OGR-00013291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate over whether employee insurance records from Mar-a-Lago (Government Exhibit 824) can be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are kept for business purposes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain inadmissible hearsay. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before ruling on their admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00013290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether an insurance form can be used as evidence. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that a form filled out by Mar-a-Lago employee Sky Roberts for Virginia Roberts is not a business record of Mar-a-Lago and cannot prove Virginia Roberts' employment there. The government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, contends the form is relevant because it shows Virginia Roberts was the dependent of a Mar-a-Lago employee, while the judge notes the records do not directly support claims of her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013289.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a lawyer's argument for the admissibility of evidence in a sex trafficking case. The lawyer, Mr. Rohrbach, explains the relevance of a phone number for Sky Roberts (linked to Virginia Roberts's parents) and personnel records from Mar-a-Lago. He outlines the expected testimony of Ms. Gill, Mar-a-Lago's records custodian, to establish the documents as valid business records.
DOJ-OGR-00013288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the relevance of documents, such as a birth certificate, to connect a Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual who was allegedly present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and who was the subject of testimony by Juan Alessi and Carolyn. Opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim, objects on the grounds of relevance and foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00013280.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a dialogue between the judge, government counsel (Mr. Rohrbach), and defense counsel (Ms. Menninger). The discussion focuses on the defense's intentions regarding witnesses Jane and Brian, specifically whether Brian will be released from his subpoena and if Jane will be recalled. Ms. Menninger states Brian is already under subpoena, prompting the judge to recall her previous statement that she would not subpoena him.
DOJ-OGR-00014584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the final sentences of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, urging the jury to find the defendant guilty of sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions (The Charge), specifically starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and several attorneys regarding the final preparations for trial exhibits. The counsel confirms that the exhibits have been reviewed by both the defense and the government and are ready for the jury. The judge provides instructions to mark the finalized list as a Court Exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00014560.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, a government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues that opposing counsel's (Ms. Menninger's) comments about how witness interviews were conducted have an evidentiary basis from prior testimony. The judge overrules the government's request, stating that the basis for those comments was the cross-examination of the witnesses themselves, not the testimony Mr. Rohrbach cited.
DOJ-OGR-00014363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion about jury instructions. Counsel argues that the jury should be instructed not to convict based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate, a point with which the Court agrees. Following a brief request between counsel members, the judge calls for a 10-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in a criminal case. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, requests and receives permission from the government and court to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two other witnesses, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The court also sets a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the government to provide its order-of-witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00011659.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that under New Mexico law, the sexual activity in question was not illegal because it lacked force or coercion, and requests that jury instructions reflect this distinction. The Court agrees to consider how best to clarify this for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Mr. Everdell), and the Judge regarding jury instructions for a Mann Act conspiracy count. The specific issue involves whether sexual conduct was illegal under New Mexico law versus New York law, and the age of consent regarding a specific witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between the government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge. The discussion centers on whether the potential illegality of sexual conduct in New Mexico can be used as evidence for an enticement charge under New York law. The judge expresses skepticism about the government's approach, pointing out that the charges were not filed under New Mexico law and cautioning against confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The discussion centers on a legal point about whether a defendant can be convicted based 'solely' on the testimony of 'witness 3' concerning sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The judge seeks to clarify the precise legal standard and the government's stance on the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00011649.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding procedural matters. The court affirms that defense experts are precluded from testifying without providing specific notice as required by Rule 16. The conversation then shifts to a specific limiting instruction for the jury, which states that the defendant cannot be convicted based on testimony about sexual conduct between 'witness 3' and 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00011648.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, involving a discussion between the Judge, defense counsel (Pagliuca, Menninger), and the government (Rohrbach). The primary topic is whether potential expert witnesses LaPorte and Naso will testify; the defense suggests it is unlikely and was done out of caution related to a document concerning 'Accuser No. 2,' while the government expresses concern about being surprised mid-trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011647.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding Rule 16 disclosures and the sufficiency of notice provided to the defense concerning the opinions of expert witness Mr. Flatley. The Judge warns the government that if their notice is insufficient, they may face issues later, emphasizing equal standards for both parties.
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.
Verdict Sheet Edit
Requesting to change a 'T' in parentheses to a checkmark on the verdict sheet.
Admissibility of testimony regarding photos found during ...
Discussion clarifying if the witness can testify about seeing photos of celebrities and nude artwork without the government introducing the physical photos as exhibits.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the witness's employment.
Admissibility of record 824
Discussion regarding legal citation and business records exception for Exhibit 824.
Admissibility of Evidence (Exhibit 823)
Discussion regarding the relevance of Sky Roberts' employment records and phone numbers to link Virginia Roberts to Mar-a-Lago.
Direct Examination
Legal examination in court
Jury Instructions
Discussion regarding instructions for alleged victim Kate and New Mexico law.
Direct Examination
Testimony regarding employment at FedEx and knowledge of billing invoice generation.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Response to application
Drafting response expected by lunch break.
Admissibility of exhibits 823 and 824
Oral argument regarding whether exhibit 824 adds value beyond 823 and the need to speak with Ms. Gill.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of personnel records for Sky Roberts.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
Expert Witness Notice / Rule 16
Discussion regarding the sufficiency of the government's notice concerning Mr. Flatley's expert opinions and the defense's obligations to review provided materials.
Withdrawal of request regarding Counts Five and Six
Discussion regarding statutory language 'foreign commerce' and editing jury instructions/charges.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of a personnel action notice for Sky Roberts.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the identity of Green Lake Lodge and authentication of photos.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the definition of persuasion, inducement, and enticement to travel.
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.
Verification of forms at Mar-a-Lago
Mr. Rohrbach interviewed Ms. Gill regarding whether Mar-a-Lago independently verifies information on forms.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity