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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-00016974.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about amending the language in jury instruction number 34. The key change involves replacing the general term "minors" with the more precise phrases "individuals under the age of 17" and "an individual under the age of 18" on specific lines of the instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00016972.jpg
This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge to finalize jury instructions. The parties agree to several edits, including replacing the term 'a Minor' with 'an Individual Under the Age of 18' to conform to the statute, and substituting the generic term 'the defendant' with the specific name 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00016971.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, where attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions with the judge. Key points include a request to substitute a 'Miller charge', a modification to specify a count relates 'solely to Carolyn', and a court clerk's observation about the word 'Minor' in the heading of Count Six. The document captures the procedural process of finalizing legal instructions for a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016969.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell. The parties discuss whether to send an indictment back to the jury due to a wording issue concerning a minor. Both the prosecution and defense unexpectedly agree that this is unnecessary, a rare occurrence that the judge remarks upon.
DOJ-OGR-00016968.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between counsel (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge (THE COURT) about editing the language in a document related to transportation. The parties agree to amend a phrase, and the judge, acting on a suggestion from the court clerk, decides to simply cut the words "or foreign" to leave the phrase as "transporting an individual in interstate commerce."
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about finalizing the wording for jury instructions. The parties agree on language concerning the defendant's knowledge of a person named Jane being under 17 and the context of 'interstate commerce'.
DOJ-OGR-00016966.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Everdell and the Judge discuss specific wording amendments to jury instructions or the verdict form, specifically requesting that Count Four be specified as relating 'solely to Jane.' They also discuss a discrepancy between the federal statute age definition (under 18) and New York law (under 17) regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016965.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The conversation centers on the testimony of a witness named Jane regarding a single incident of sexual abuse in New Mexico and whether a specific limiting instruction should be added to the jury charge. The judge ultimately denies the request, stating that the defense failed to ask for it at the appropriate time and that the charge is based on a violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00016964.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal case, likely a hearing or trial. It involves discussion about jury instructions, testimony regarding sexual contact between Jane and Epstein in New Mexico, and the testimony of Kate and Annie. The attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, are arguing about the relevance of certain evidence and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00016962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where Mr. Everdell requests an addition to the jury instructions concerning the testimony of witnesses Kate and Ms. Farmer. Mr. Rohrbach argues against this addition, claiming the existing instructions are sufficient and that adding more would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is arguing a point of law to the judge regarding the jury instruction for 'dominant purpose' in a case about crossing state lines for criminal sexual conduct. He cites legal precedents, including the 'Sand' and 'Miller' cases, to support his position that the purpose need only be one of the dominant purposes, not the sole one.
DOJ-OGR-00016954.jpg
Page 28 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt details a legal debate between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell before the Judge ('The Court') regarding specific jury instructions concerning 'persuasion and inducement or enticement to travel' and 'significant or motivating purpose.' The Judge overrules a request regarding causation definitions.
DOJ-OGR-00016952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions defining 'causation,' 'inducement,' and 'persuasion' in relation to a victim referred to as 'Jane' traveling in interstate commerce. The defense seeks specific language linking inducement to the travel, while the prosecution argues that the terms inherently imply causation.
DOJ-OGR-00016950.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing for specific jury instructions regarding the definition of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'enticement' based on the precedent *U.S. v. Broxmeyer*. He proposes language stating that these elements are only satisfied if they specifically *caused* the victim, referred to as 'Jane,' to travel in interstate commerce.
DOJ-OGR-00016946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where attorney Rohrbach argues for the distinct meanings of "force" and "coercion" in a sex trafficking statute. The Court overrules an objection by attorney Everdell, who then ensures his objection is preserved for the record before moving on in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00016944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach of the government. They are collaborating to edit statutory text for a legal document, agreeing to remove language related to foreign commerce and coercion to better fit the evidence of the case. The agreed-upon changes include using ellipses and adding the phrase 'knowingly persuades, induces, or entices'.
DOJ-OGR-00016942.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach debating the specific language regarding the age of 'minors' in Count Five of the indictment, which covers a conspiracy period from 2001 to 2004. The prosecutor clarifies that for sex trafficking counts, the relevant age of consent is statutorily defined as 18.
DOJ-OGR-00016939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach (for the government) about jury instructions. The main point of contention is whether to explicitly state 'under the age of 17' for an offense, with Mr. Everdell arguing it's necessary for clarity to distinguish from other individuals mentioned in flight logs whose ages are unknown. The government acknowledges the age is an element of the offense but questions its inclusion in a summary.
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
DOJ-OGR-00016932.jpg
A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, withdraws a request regarding Counts Five and Six due to statutory changes regarding 'foreign commerce.' The Judge works with defense attorney Mr. Everdell to specifically remove the words 'and foreign' from page 15 of the document under discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00016931.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 prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and the Judge regarding jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 1591 (sex trafficking). The discussion focuses on whether 'foreign commerce' elements apply to charges involving Virginia Roberts versus Carolyn, with the defense/court noting a lack of evidence regarding Maxwell enticing Roberts specifically.
DOJ-OGR-00016929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where attorneys debate the legal terminology in an indictment. Mr. Everdell argues against including 'and foreign' in the commerce charge, suggesting a lack of evidence. In response, Mr. Rohrbach, for the government, cites flight records showing the defendant traveled overseas with Jeffrey Epstein and a 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, asserting this evidence supports the 'foreign commerce' element.
DOJ-OGR-00016928.jpg
This is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place in open court without the jury present, involving a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the draft jury charge and verdict form. The Judge outlines the process for reviewing requested changes to the draft charge page by page.
DOJ-OGR-00016908.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 prosecution (Ms. Comey, Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Ms. Menninger), and the Court regarding the finalization of stipulations and the withdrawal of a request to issue an arrest warrant for a witness named Kelly Bovino who failed to appear for a subpoena. The parties also discuss resolving issues to avoid calling a witness from London on the following Monday.
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.
Response to application
Drafting response expected by lunch break.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
Admissibility of exhibits 823 and 824
Oral argument regarding whether exhibit 824 adds value beyond 823 and the need to speak with Ms. Gill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Direct Examination
Legal examination in court
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).
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity