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 testimony | Direct examination of witness Ms. Chapell by Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 801, an in... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel regarding witness scheduling and the relevance of test... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding subpoenas and witness testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislain... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | William Brown is called as a witness for the government, sworn in, and begins direct examination ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Supervisory Investigator Brown regarding Government Exhibits 21 and... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A judge is giving instructions to the jury regarding the testimony of an upcoming witness. The in... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Gill Velez by Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 823-R. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony regarding Government Exhibit 741. | Southern District Court (Im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding a procedural issue with the wording of an indictment, specifica... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal discussion between Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding the definition of 'illegal sexual... | Courtroom (implied by South... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, presents an argument to the court to deny the defendant's motion regar... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Paul Kane by Mr. Rohrbach. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings resume; jury called to enter. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the wording of an indictment, specifically whether to inclu... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Ms. Chapell by attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 8... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion about case scheduling, specifically a charging conference and briefing. | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court between attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge regarding tri... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A hearing or trial session where procedural matters are being discussed. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the relevance and admissibility of Government Exhibits 52 and 824... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys ar... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court where Mr. Rohrbach argues a point about a fireable offense and offers an ex... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Brown regarding the New York State DMV 'compass database' and the a... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion took place in court regarding the wording of a jury instruction about uncalled witne... | A court in an unspecified d... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion about the procedural handling of redacted photographic evidence during a trial. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and attorneys regarding the specific wording of jury instructions ... | Southern District Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017026.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. They discuss logistical matters for the trial, including the preparation of redacted transcripts for jury read-backs and the decision to provide the jury with digital exhibits on a flash drive instead of physical copies. The judge also coordinates with a Ms. Williams to finalize the exhibit list for both parties.
DOJ-OGR-00017023.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the prosecution and defense. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically the confirmation that trial exhibits have been made public through the U.S. Attorney's Office and the logistics of redacting sensitive information from closing argument slides in a timely manner. Counsel clarifies which version of a specific exhibit, AF-1R, is the public version.
DOJ-OGR-00017021.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. The Court, along with counsel Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach, finalizes a minor textual edit and discusses redactions. The judge thanks the court staff and all parties for their willingness to work on a Saturday before adjourning the proceedings until 8:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The discussion centers on finalizing the 'verdict sheet,' specifically correcting a typographical error where a 'T' appeared instead of a checkmark. The Judge outlines a schedule for receiving a letter from the government regarding open issues and sending out final redline and clean versions of the documents.
DOJ-OGR-00017013.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys Everdell and Rohrbach debating and agreeing upon the specific phrasing for legal charges with the Judge, specifically regarding 'sex trafficking' and 'conspiracy' counts involving individuals under the age of 18 and a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00017012.jpg
This document is page 86 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the specific wording of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six. They agree to replace the term 'minor' with 'individuals under the age of 17' and specify '(Jane only)' for certain counts.
DOJ-OGR-00017011.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of the verdict sheet and jury instructions. The parties agree to amend the language of Count One (conspiracy to entice) to refer to 'individuals' (plural) rather than 'an individual' under the age of 17.
DOJ-OGR-00017010.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach. They are finalizing jury instructions and correcting a typographical error on the verdict sheet, changing the phrase 'solely be' to 'solely by'.
DOJ-OGR-00017009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate over jury instructions and closing arguments, specifically regarding an 'empty chair' argument (likely referring to Epstein's absence) and the government's motivations for prosecution. The Judge (The Court) explicitly rules that there will be no argument allowed regarding the government's motivation.
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017003.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The discussion centers on the precise wording of a jury instruction concerning "uncalled witnesses," with Mr. Everdell proposing a modification and Mr. Rohrbach defending the standard instruction used in the district.
DOJ-OGR-00017001.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding jury instruction no. 50 ('uncalled witnesses charge'). Everdell argues that the instruction should not be included because certain defense witnesses refused to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, noting the government's power to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00017000.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, proposes an instruction regarding the credibility of a witness with a prior felony conviction, citing the case 'United States v. Berry' as a model. The opposing counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, requests time to review this new proposal, which the Court grants, suggesting the instruction be added as a standalone item.
DOJ-OGR-00016998.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding 'Instruction 44' concerning the credibility of witnesses who are convicted felons. Mr. Everdell reads a proposed instruction text derived from 'Sand' (likely a legal reference book), which Mr. Rohrbach challenges as not being standard practice in that district.
DOJ-OGR-00016995.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Sternheim, Pagliuca, Rohrbach). The main topic is the formulation of jury instructions and closing arguments, with Mr. Rohrbach arguing for the inclusion of a 'conscious avoidance theory' on behalf of the government. The judge acknowledges the argument as a 'fair point' and considers giving the instruction, while also mentioning a theory related to flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00016993.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the 'conscious avoidance' theory, stating that instructions to lie about age came from Virginia, not Ms. Maxwell. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach counters by citing testimony from Mr. Alessi regarding Maxwell recruiting at legitimate hotels, suggesting she may have confused underage girls with adults.
DOJ-OGR-00016992.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text captures a legal argument between Mr. Rohrbach and the Court regarding whether the defense has opened the door to the issue of Maxwell's knowledge of the victims' ages. Specific references are made to testimony from Larry Visoski, Kimberly Espinosa, and a victim named Carolyn, who was instructed to lie about her age at 'the house'.
DOJ-OGR-00016987.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding dated August 10, 2022, detailing arguments concerning a defendant's involvement in offenses. The discussion revolves around the prosecution's theory of the defendant as an 'active participant' and the appropriateness of a 'conscious avoidance theory' instruction for the jury, particularly given the case involves children. Mr. Rohrbach presents counter-arguments, asserting that conviction remains possible based on the defendant's facilitation of offenses and the conscious avoidance theory.
DOJ-OGR-00016985.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a legal argument regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'overt acts' and the testimony of a witness named 'Kate.' The defense (Everdell and Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) are present, and the Judge calls for a 10-minute recess following a request by Ms. Sternheim to consult with Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell regarding edits to Jury Instruction No. 36. The discussion focuses on semantic changes, such as replacing 'the defendant' with 'Ms. Maxwell,' and addresses the removal of an individual named 'Kate' from the list of overt acts.
DOJ-OGR-00016983.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court hearing on August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The discussion centers on amending a legal document, specifically a clause alleging that Maxwell, among Epstein's employees, sent gifts to Carolyn between 2001 and 2004. Mr. Everdell argues for the exclusion of Maxwell's name from this clause, citing a lack of evidence and contradictory FedEx records, to which the government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, ultimately agrees.
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions regarding 'overt acts' involving witnesses named Jane, Annie, and Kate. The government agrees to remove an instruction related to Kate to avoid an improper conviction based solely on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
DOJ-OGR-00016976.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of jury instructions, specifically distinguishing between 'minors' and 'individuals under the age of 18' in relation to sex trafficking and conspiracy counts. The judge also corrects a clerical error in the title of Instruction 36 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five.
DOJ-OGR-00016975.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge ('The Court'), regarding specific wording changes to Jury Instruction No. 34. The prosecution (Rohrbach) successfully argues that the phrase 'an individual under the age of 18' should be changed to 'individuals under the age of 18' to accurately reflect that the conspiracy charge involved multiple minors.
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.
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.
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.
Witnesses observing the trial
Mr. Rohrbach confirms an understanding that witnesses testifying as victims will not observe the trial until both sides have rested.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Calling and examining a witness
Mr. Rohrbach calls Janine Gill to the stand and begins the direct examination by greeting her.
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.
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.
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.
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 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