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 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admission of a document into evidence. The court overru... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument takes place before a judge regarding an objection to testimony. Mr. Rohrbach obj... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Ms. Chapell by Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibits. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding a defense subpoena, negotiations with the government over redacti... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding regarding the potential for improper communication between... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/conference regarding jury instructions. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding evidence admission and legal citations. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding witness conduct investigation. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding jury instructions/charging conference. | Courtroom (Jury not present) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 741 (GX-741) into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Mr. Besselsen regarding student record storage. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing logistical arrangements for a witness infected with COVID-19. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding objections to cross-examination tactics and sealing of the record. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing the admissibility of Exhibits 823 and 824 regarding Virginia Roberts'... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing jury instructions and scheduling. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding finalization of the verdict sheet and jury charges in Case 1:20-cr-00... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony authenticating Government Exhibit 21 | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing/transcript date for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing final jury instructions and verdict sheet language for Case 1:20-cr-0... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Testimony of Janine Gill Velez | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys discuss specific... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding witness testimony and briefing schedules. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Discussion c... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Government witness William Brown during court proceedings. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 12/10/21) detailing a legal argument regarding expert witnesses. The defense discusses the potential testimony of Mr. Kelso, noting it depends on the testimony of government witness Mr. Flatley, who will speak about metadata retrieved from devices seized at Epstein's home. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach responds that the government has provided ample notice and '3500 information' regarding Flatley's expected testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018990.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Comey, and the judge regarding whether the defense had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness named Mr. Alessi. The judge also mentions a planned briefing on "Government Exhibit 52" as indicated by a Mr. Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00018989.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the examination of a witness named Rodgers. The proceedings involve a discussion between the Court, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell regarding the redaction of a name ('Carolyn') and phone numbers from evidence. Mr. Everdell also coordinates the placement of folders for the jury ahead of cross-examination, and the parties agree to discuss an 'in limine instruction' after the lunch break.
DOJ-OGR-00018894.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. It captures the moment an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concludes his questioning of a witness, Gill Velez, by pointing the jury to an exhibit labeled "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the same witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018893.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Gill (Gill Velez), about a personnel action notice for an individual named Sky Roberts, which is entered as Government Exhibit 823. The key information established from the document is that Sky Roberts' date of hire was April 11, 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00018892.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Gill Velez. The testimony concerns the authentication of Government Exhibit 823, which is identified as a personnel action notice regarding the original hiring of Sky Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00018889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the beginning of court proceedings for the day, where the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, calls witness Janine Gill Velez to the stand. The transcript records the witness being sworn in and the start of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018887.jpg
This document is page 25 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorney Mr. Rohrbach argues to the Court regarding the reliability of forms filled out by Mr. Roberts, an employee of Mar-a-Lago, concerning his dependents and insurance coverage. The argument centers on whether Mr. Roberts had a business duty to be truthful to his employer, distinguishing the situation from the precedent set in United States v. Lieberman, though the Court remains skeptical.
DOJ-OGR-00018886.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel (Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Comey) about Exhibit 52. After confirming no further witnesses will testify about the exhibit, Mr. Rohrbach informs the court of his plan to submit a letter that evening arguing for its admission. The judge instructs him to confer with defense counsel on the matter before the court takes a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018885.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The dialogue involves a debate between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) regarding the admissibility of 'record 824' and the implications of testimony provided by Juan Alessi concerning the year 2001. The proceedings are paused by the Judge to wait for a juror experiencing train issues.
DOJ-OGR-00018882.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding dated August 10, 2022, discussing legal arguments related to factual records, employer practices, and the admissibility of evidence. Key points include an objection to Government Exhibit 761, a Professional Children's School application for Jane, due to unverified financial guarantor information, and the Court's ruling on the relevance of Mr. Epstein's alleged financial assistance to a witness's family. The discussion also touches upon legal precedents for adoptive business records.
DOJ-OGR-00018877.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 Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the admission of exhibits 823 and 824, followed by a recess due to a juror's train delay. The Judge cites the case 'United States v. Lieberman' in relation to arguments about insurance cards and employer verification of employee information.
DOJ-OGR-00018876.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The judge discusses the admissibility of insurance forms under the business records exception. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a minor issue regarding a 'fourth witness' identified as Mr. Rogers, and the court prepares to break until the jury arrives.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018874.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues against admitting insurance requests as business records, stating they do not prove Virginia Roberts was employed by or present at Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach clarifies the government's intent is to show Virginia Roberts was the dependent of Sky Roberts, who is confirmed to be a Mar-a-Lago employee.
DOJ-OGR-00018872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge and attorneys regarding jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named 'Kate' and the applicability of New Mexico law. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim anticipates the government calling Janine Gill as a witness, noting she has been employed by a property company related to the Trump Organization since 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00018868.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding witness strategy. The defense is undecided about recalling 'Jane' or calling 'Brian', while the prosecution flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' to the stand that day.
DOJ-OGR-00018867.jpg
This is page 5 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense (Mr. Rohrbach) argues that the recall of witness 'Jane' should be limited to a prior consistent statement. The prosecution (Ms. Menninger) argues that Jane's potential contact with her subpoenaed younger brother violates a sequestration order and should be open for questioning. The Court discusses a lack of a specific order prohibiting witnesses from speaking to each other and references a text message from June 15th.
DOJ-OGR-00018866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense attorney (Ms. Menninger) and the prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) are discussing a potential witness named Brian before the Judge. The government has decided not to call Brian, and the defense is debating whether to call him despite having him under subpoena, due to concerns about his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister and the risk of opening the door to prior consistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00018864.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 dialogue involves a procedural dispute between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the potential recalling of a witness named Jane and the subpoena status of a witness named Brian. The defense raises concerns about missing disclosures regarding conversations Jane had with her brother, questioning the truthfulness of the recounting of events.
DOJ-OGR-00018853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about witness scheduling. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, informs the court that an investigation could not be completed and they will not call a witness named Brian. In response to a request from defense counsel, the court directs that an updated witness list be provided that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00018758.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger. The main topics are a potential violation of a witness sequestration order, after Ms. Menninger admits to speaking briefly with a Ms. Moe, and the scheduling of future proceedings. The judge requires the attorneys to brief the sequestration issue and indicates a decision on whether a person named Brian will testify is pending their input.
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach). They discuss procedural issues, including a potential motion to call a witness's brother, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony, and the government's communication with a witness named Jane after she left the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00018756.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 Court, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding deadlines for submitting briefs and the results of a factual investigation concerning a male witness. The text also addresses a conflict where the defense has moved to preclude this witness's testimony while simultaneously holding him under a defense subpoena.
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.
Insurance records
Mr. Rohrbach states he will 'go have a conversation with Ms. Gill about this' (referring to records).
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.
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.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of personnel records for Sky Roberts.
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
Discussion regarding instructions for alleged victim Kate and New Mexico law.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
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.
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.
Direct Examination
Legal examination in court
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of a personnel action notice for Sky Roberts.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the definition of persuasion, inducement, and enticement to travel.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the identity of Green Lake Lodge and authentication of photos.
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.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
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).
Response to application
Drafting response expected by lunch break.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity