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 hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing jury charge instructions and limitations on closing arguments. | Courtroom (SDNY) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial). | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Hearing/Trial Proceedings | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding witness testimony and evidence admissibility in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussion regarding witness list and subpoenas. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding reda... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar conference | Courtroom Sidebar | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial scheduling and the admissibility/waiver of privilege regarding a... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell context implie... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding pre-trial motions and expert witness disclosures. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically a discussion ... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding discussing jury instructions regarding overt acts and specific witnesses (Jane, ... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding jury instructions and upcoming witness testimony. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Mr. Kane in court regarding Professional Children's School records. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Defense Exhibit TC-1 (FedEx invoices) into evidence under temporary seal. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Conclusion of testimony for witness Ms. Chapell. | Courtroom | 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 |
DOJ-OGR-00018752.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details an afternoon session where the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Menninger) discuss the late discovery of text messages involving 'Jane' and her brother. As a result, the parties agree to delay the testimony of a witness named Brian until the following morning to allow time to review the new evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the government (Mr. Rohrbach) and an opposing party (Ms. Menninger). Mr. Rohrbach confirms that the government will not question a witness, Mr. Flatley, about 'CDs' during direct examination, which resolves a procedural issue and satisfies the court and Ms. Menninger. The judge remarks that prior preparation for this line of questioning is now moot but may be saved for future use.
DOJ-OGR-00018612.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The primary issue is the scope of testimony for an upcoming witness, Mr. Flatley, concerning whether a file's 'created date' is the same as its 'modified date' on a CD, and whether this constitutes factual testimony or requires an expert opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00018469.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT) and three attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach, and Ms. Pomerantz) regarding an objection to having an agent testify about exhibits. The discussion clarifies that the agent in question is the one who conducted a search, not the current witness, after which the judge concludes the matter and calls for the witness and jury to enter.
DOJ-OGR-00018468.jpg
Excerpt from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Rohrbach seeks clarification from the Judge regarding testimony about a search of the New York residence. The discussion confirms that while the government will not introduce physical exhibits of nude photos or photos of Epstein with celebrities, the witness is permitted to testify about observing these items and 'nude artwork' in the house.
DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Jeffrey Epstein's lease violations and residency at a specific property in late 1995 and early 1996. She references a witness hired in December 1995 who confirmed Epstein was not living at the property for the first three weeks of his employment.
DOJ-OGR-00016900.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the admissibility of a deposition transcript of Mr. Epstein. The deposition, taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, concerns when Epstein moved from a property on East 69th Street to 9 East 71st Street, which he stated was around January 1996. Rohrbach compares this evidentiary issue to a separate matter involving '44 Kinnerton Street'.
DOJ-OGR-00016234.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brown. Prosecutor Rohrbach introduces Government Exhibit 22, identified as an image from the DMV database, which the Court admits under seal to protect the witness's identity. The proceedings also reference a Defense Exhibit LV3A located in the jurors' binders.
DOJ-OGR-00016233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Supervisory Investigator Brown by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The court admits Government Exhibit 21 under seal, and Brown then identifies Government Exhibit 22 as a DMV image capture of the same person from Exhibit 21, explaining that the record is stored in a photosystem database.
DOJ-OGR-00016232.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Brown by prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the authentication of Government Exhibit 21, identified as a report from the New York State DMV 'compass database' containing ID cards and driver's licenses.
DOJ-OGR-00016230.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in and initial direct examination of a government witness named William Brown. Brown identifies himself as an employee of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Field Investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019173.jpg
This document is an index from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the examination of a witness named Tracy Chapell, listing the page numbers for the direct examination by Mr. Rohrbach and the cross-examination by Mr. Everdell. The index also catalogs government and defendant exhibits (801, 801-R, 802, 802-R, 803, 803-R, and TC-1) that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding FedEx invoices. The defense introduces Exhibit TC-1 under temporary seal pending redactions, which is admitted without objection from prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the witness is subsequently excused.
DOJ-OGR-00019152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony reveals details of a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Jeffrey E. Epstein and Cecilia Steen, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue in New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida. The questioning then begins to address invoices from Federal Express that were provided to the witness by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00019151.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed in 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Chapell. The testimony focuses on Government Exhibit 802, confirming that J. Epstein sent a package from 457 Madison Avenue, NY, to a recipient named Cardine in West Palm Beach, Florida, on December 12, 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00019150.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient's location as West Palm Beach, Florida, with the recipient's first name being Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00019149.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. During the testimony, Ms. Chapell examines Government Exhibit 801, an invoice, and identifies Jeffrey E. Epstein as the account holder. She further states that S. Kellen is listed as the sender of a related package, with Jeffrey E. Epstein's name also appearing in the sender's information.
DOJ-OGR-00019148.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 803 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." Following her testimony and with no objection from another attorney, Mr. Everdell, the court admits this exhibit and others into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019145.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Chapell, a Senior Paralegal at Federal Express Corporation. Ms. Chapell testifies about her role, which involves responding to subpoenas and producing company records. She also explains that Federal Express's billing invoices are generated through scanning events and processed by the revenue service department.
DOJ-OGR-00019143.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach and Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge regarding the redaction and docketing of a letter and an 'Exhibit A'. The proceedings appear to be paused briefly while waiting for missing jurors to arrive.
DOJ-OGR-00019141.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where the judge and attorneys discuss scheduling for the remainder of a trial. The main topic is whether to hold a charge conference on Thursday night, which depends on if the defense will rest its case before Friday. A defense attorney also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena served to an individual named Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00019124.jpg
This document is the final page (Index of Examination) of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers, along with the attorneys conducting the examinations (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Comey, Pagliuca, Moe, Everdell). It also logs the receipt of Government Exhibits 823, 823-R, 105, 1, 2, 3, 662, and 662-R.
DOJ-OGR-00019122.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. It records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding a briefing schedule that needs to be resolved before the government rests its case. The Judge denies a request for simultaneous briefing and sets a deadline of 7:00 PM for the government and 10:00 PM for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017205.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the final moments of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, where she asks the jury to find the defendant guilty of participating in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions, starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017027.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dialogue between the Judge (The Court) and attorneys Menninger, Rohrbach, and Everdell regarding the finalization of evidence exhibits (specifically a flash drive and physical exhibits) to be sent to the jury. The page concludes with the court announcing a recess to await the jurors.
Insurance records
Mr. Rohrbach states he will 'go have a conversation with Ms. Gill about this' (referring to 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
Discussion regarding whether personnel forms constitute hearsay or business records.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Argument for relevance of documents
Mr. Rohrbach argues that documents, such as a birth certificate, are relevant to connect Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the person who was present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan Alessi and Carolyn.
Details of a package shipment from 2002
Mr. Rohrbach questions witness Ms. Chapell about the sender's address, recipient's first name, delivery location, and shipment date of a package sent on December 3, 2002. They also refer to Government Exhibits GX-11 and GX-803/801.
Admissibility of a document under the business records ex...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that a document should be admitted into evidence because it was used in cross-examination and qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school, as the school integrated it into its files and relied upon it.
Argument against defendant's motion on enticement charges...
Mr. Rohrbach argues that the defendant's motion should be denied because the defendant built a relationship with 'Jane' over a multi-year period by playing on her hopes and desires, which constitutes enticement and persuasion leading to her travel to New York.
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.
Withdrawal of request regarding Counts Five and Six
Discussion regarding statutory language 'foreign commerce' and editing jury instructions/charges.
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.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Admissibility of record 824
Discussion regarding legal citation and business records exception for Exhibit 824.
Verdict Sheet Edit
Requesting to change a 'T' in parentheses to a checkmark on the verdict sheet.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the witness's employment.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of personnel records for Sky Roberts.
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.
Response to application
Drafting response expected by lunch break.
Jury Instructions
Discussion regarding instructions for alleged victim Kate and New Mexico law.
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.
Admissibility of exhibits 823 and 824
Oral argument regarding whether exhibit 824 adds value beyond 823 and the need to speak with Ms. Gill.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity