MR. ROHRBACH
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
William Brown
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Gill
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Kane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Gill
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Kane
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANINE GILL VELEZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Besselsen
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Janine Gill Velez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Calling and examining a witness
Mr. Rohrbach calls Janine Gill to the stand and begins the direct examination by greeting her.
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.
Clarification on the legal standard for conviction based ...
A dialogue between Mr. Rohrbach and the Court about whether adding the word 'solely' to a statement of law is correct, specifically concerning the conviction of a defendant based on the testimony of 'witness 3' regarding sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein.
Evidentiary basis for comments on witness interviews
Mr. Rohrbach, for the government, argues that Ms. Menninger's comments about how witness interviews were conducted are supported by evidence from Special Agent Young's testimony, which was elicited by Ms. Comey. The Court disagrees and overrules the government's request.
Update on factual investigation and witness list
Mr. Rohrbach informs the court that the government cannot complete its investigation by 6 o'clock, partly because Jane's counsel is unavailable, and therefore elects not to call Brian as a witness. He also states the government does not believe any court rule has been violated.
Impeachment of witness Juan Alessi
Mr. Rohrbach argues against the impeachment, stating that the details of the prior burglary are a collateral matter and not central to the current trial.
Legal argument on conspiracy charges and the Mann Act
Mr. Rohrbach agrees with the Court's summary and adds a point about 'minor Victim 2' being charged only with conspiracy, arguing that events in New Mexico are relevant to proving intent for illegal sexual activity in New York under the Mann Act.
Admissibility of evidence, specifically a deposition tran...
Mr. Rohrbach argues for the admission of a deposition transcript of Mr. Epstein concerning a move in 1996, comparing the issue to a matter involving 44 Kinnerton Street.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity