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-00016906.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach argue before the judge regarding the admissibility of a prior deposition excerpt from Mr. Epstein. The defense (Rohrbach) objects to the evidence based on Rule 804, arguing that the government's motive in the current criminal case (determining where Epstein personally lived) differs from the motive in the prior civil litigation (determining if he had moved).
DOJ-OGR-00016837.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 10, 2022. It details procedural discussions between the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) and the prosecution (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of flight records and the submission of legal applications. The court sustains an objection based on Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 during the direct examination of a witness named Dubin.
DOJ-OGR-00016771.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument by Mr. Rohrbach to the court. He refutes a point made by opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, regarding the defense's ability to challenge an investigation's thoroughness. Mr. Rohrbach argues that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses like 'Jane' about events, they are prohibited from calling a case agent during their direct case simply to highlight investigative steps that were not taken, referencing the Watson and Brady cases as precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00016767.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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that the defense should be allowed to highlight that the allegations are 25 years old. He asserts this explains the absence of corroborating evidence, such as geo-location data, because records are destroyed over such a long period.
DOJ-OGR-00016763.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that he should be allowed to question an agent to explain the absence of modern evidence (like geo-location and phone records) due to the age of the allegations. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach questions the necessity of this, noting that a custodian has already testified regarding recordkeeping.
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016735.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and several lawyers regarding procedural issues. The topics include a defense subpoena, ongoing negotiations with the government over redactions for exhibits, and a decision by the defense not to pursue testimony from a Mr. Hamilton in England due to technical complications.
DOJ-OGR-00016635.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim, over the admissibility of a question for a witness. The judge sustains an objection on '401 ground', limiting the line of questioning. The transcript concludes with the court preparing to bring in the jury and call witnesses Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Williams to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00016634.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of a statement allegedly made by 'Kate' claiming the case against Maxwell was strengthening because accusers were 'strengthening their stories.' The prosecution argues against its admission as an inconsistent statement because Kate was not challenged on it during cross-examination, while the defense appears to argue for its admission under a bias framework.
DOJ-OGR-00016633.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a witness's testimony. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach debate with the judge whether a statement allegedly made by someone named Kate, "It fell into my lap," can be used as evidence to show bias concerning Mr. Hamilton. The judge rules that the statement is permissible for the jury to consider for bias, but prohibits the witness, Mr. Hamilton, from speculating on its meaning.
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The core issue is whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias. The discussion references the legal precedent set in *United States v. Harvey* and focuses on whether a specific statement, "it fell into my lap," is sufficient to create an inference of bias for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016630.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The discussion centers on a '401 objection' regarding the admissibility of evidence to impeach a witness named Kate. Mr. Rohrbach argues the evidence is extrinsic and on a collateral matter, while Ms. Sternheim contends it is permissible to show the witness's motive and bias.
DOJ-OGR-00016629.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about admitting testimony from a witness. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that testimony about a conversation with a woman named 'Kate' regarding Jeffrey Epstein is necessary to show Kate's financial motive and bias, suggesting she is interested in a 'windfall'. The government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, objects to this line of testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016622.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Pomerantz) regarding procedural matters. The discussion focuses on narrowing the scope of an affidavit to a few paragraphs and determining the schedule for the remainder of the day's proceedings. Logistical issues are raised, including arranging a Webex for a 'Mr. Hamilton' and estimating the time required for a 'Professor Loftus'.
DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.
DOJ-OGR-00016510.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell), and a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach). The judge arranges a charging conference for the upcoming Saturday morning and discusses ensuring public access. Mr. Everdell then raises a logistical issue concerning the presentation of photo evidence to the jury, as they have only just received a single physical copy of the photos.
DOJ-OGR-00016505.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that a witness must testify via WebEx because they have tested positive for COVID and cannot enter the United States. The Court agrees that unavailability is established and anticipates permitting the remote testimony, instructing counsel to work out the logistics.
DOJ-OGR-00016504.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a Prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) and the Judge regarding the logistical handling of a witness who has tested positive for COVID-19. The government indicates they will not contest the witness's unavailability under Rule 15 if a positive test exists.
DOJ-OGR-00016503.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about a witness who has contracted COVID. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that the witness be allowed to testify remotely via WebEx, while the opposing government counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, insists on the need for cross-examination and demands proof of the positive COVID test. The Court intervenes to clarify whether this proof has already been provided in a letter.
DOJ-OGR-00016502.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, generally associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings cover rulings on the testimony of Dr. Loftus regarding suggestive questioning and Agent Young. The court then addresses a motion to preclude the testimony of a witness named Alexander Hamilton, leading to a joke by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim about Broadway tickets and a counter-quote by the Judge referencing Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.
DOJ-OGR-00016498.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. The conversation covers the scheduling of a witness for testimony and the legal relevance of that testimony, which concerns who resided at a home before 1997. Mr. Rohrbach, representing the government, argues that this evidence has only "marginal impeachment value" against the defendant's prior deposition testimony regarding their move to the 44 Kinnerton Street home.
DOJ-OGR-00016495.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell discussing the admissibility of Ghislaine Maxwell's 2019 deposition. The key issue is distinguishing between when Maxwell began living in a specific home (allegedly 1992 or 1993) versus when she officially owned it.
DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.
DOJ-OGR-00016482.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 266 of 267) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists the examination of four witnesses: William Brown, Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan, and Janice Swain. The index details which attorneys conducted the direct, cross, and redirect examinations for each witness, referencing specific page numbers in the full transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00016459.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges of enticement. Rohrbach asserts that the defendant, along with an individual named Epstein, manipulated a victim named Jane by building a relationship with her over several years, ultimately persuading her to travel to New York. The argument centers on the idea that playing on Jane's 'hopes and desires' fits the legal definition of enticement, justifying the charges.
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.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Withdrawal of request regarding Counts Five and Six
Discussion regarding statutory language 'foreign commerce' and editing jury instructions/charges.
Admissibility of record 824
Discussion regarding legal citation and business records exception for Exhibit 824.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity