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-00013286.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named Kate. The judge clarifies their view on the instruction, avoiding complexities of New Mexico law. An attorney for the government, Ms. Sternheim, then informs the court that their next witness will be Janine Gill, an employee of the Trump organization since 2007, and that they will introduce two government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00013284.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys and a judge about witness strategy. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, states she cannot yet confirm which witnesses her side will call, while the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, flags the possibility of calling 'victim 2' later that day. The discussion highlights the fluid nature of trial proceedings and witness scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00013283.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys discuss the potential recall of a witness named 'Jane' and whether she violated a sequestration order by communicating with her younger brother, who was also under subpoena. The Judge notes that while such communication is poor practice, no specific order barring witness communication had been entered.
DOJ-OGR-00013282.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 the Judge (The Court), defense attorney Ms. Menninger, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding a potential witness named Brian. The defense is weighing the risks of calling Brian due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding his sister, while the prosecution notes that Brian has already left the district as he is no longer a government witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013281.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. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach argue over the relevance of a potential witness identified as 'the other brother' and his potential communications with a witness named 'Jane.' The defense notes they have subpoenaed this brother based on his prior FBI interviews, while the prosecution argues there is no basis for further inquiry as 'Jane' has already testified and the government is not calling 'Brian' as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013268.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Court and various counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, announces they cannot complete a factual investigation on time and have decided not to call a witness named Brian. Other counsel then discuss the need for an updated witness list in light of this development.
DOJ-OGR-00013173.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger about a potential violation of a witness sequestration order. The judge instructs the attorneys to brief the issue and schedules further discussion on whether a potential witness named Brian will testify.
DOJ-OGR-00013172.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach about several procedural matters. Key topics include the low probability of calling a certain 'brother' as a witness, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with experts, and the government's request to speak with a witness named Jane about logistics after her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013170.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge and attorneys (Menninger and Rohrbach) are discussing the admissibility of testimony and potential violations of witness sequestration (witnesses speaking to each other). The Judge indicates he is unlikely to exclude testimony unless there was a 'knowing and full violation,' preferring to let the issue be handled during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013169.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Judge ('The Court') and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss a male witness who seemingly violated instructions by discussing his testimony with his sister. The Court orders the government to conduct a full investigation into this transgression and produce the facts to the defense by the end of the day.
DOJ-OGR-00013168.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (Mr. Rohrbach). The judge expresses concern about potential improper communication of testimony from a witness named Jane to her brother, suggesting a violation of the 'spirit' of a court rule. The judge recommends a full review of text and email communications and an interview with Jane to ensure there are no other conduits of information.
DOJ-OGR-00013167.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion about newly discovered text messages between a person named Jane and her brother. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, requests a delay in calling a witness, Brian, to allow time to analyze the messages. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, agrees but expresses concern about the piecemeal disclosure of information and requests a formal, under-oath representation from the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013028.jpg
This document is page 15 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Ms. Menninger regarding the scope of a witness's testimony concerning the technical properties of burning CDs and file dates (created vs. modified). The defense argues that certain technical details were not disclosed in a 'November 26 letter,' while the prosecution argues these details are common knowledge not requiring specialized expertise.
DOJ-OGR-00013027.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 details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Ms. Menninger regarding the upcoming testimony of a witness named Mr. Flatley. The dispute centers on whether Flatley's testimony regarding file dates on CDs constitutes expert opinion or purely factual testimony based on '3500 material'.
DOJ-OGR-00008935.jpg
This legal document from a court case, filed on February 11, 2022, details arguments over jury instructions concerning whether an offense must be a violation of New York law, even if events occurred in New Mexico. It highlights a specific note from the deliberating jury asking for clarification on Count Four, questioning if defendant Ms. Maxwell could be convicted for aiding a victim's (Jane's) return flight if the criminal intent was tied to the initial flight to New Mexico. The court declined to provide clarifying instructions, referring the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00014008.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 discussion centers on whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias, specifically in relation to her statement "it fell into my lap." The judge cites the Second Circuit case *United States v. Harvey* to clarify the applicable law on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013996.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial break. The judge instructs the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell) to confer and narrow their disagreements regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements. The judge states an intention to review these statements during the lunch break to help resolve the issues later that day.
DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.
DOJ-OGR-00013881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about allowing a witness to testify remotely via WebEx. Counsel argues the witness is unavailable due to a positive COVID test, referencing the case United States v. Al-Fawwaz. The court accepts the reason for unavailability and anticipates permitting the remote testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The transcript details a discussion between the Judge and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the admissibility of remote testimony for a witness who may have tested positive for COVID-19, referencing Ms. Sternheim's proffer and the standards of Rule 15. The government indicates it would not resist a finding of unavailability if a positive test is confirmed.
DOJ-OGR-00013879.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests that a male witness, who is quarantined with COVID-19, be allowed to testify via WebEx rather than traveling. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach insists that the witness must be subject to cross-examination (rejecting a stipulation) and demands proof of a positive COVID test.
DOJ-OGR-00013878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a discussion during a hearing concerning the relevance of Dr. Loftus's opinions, Agent Young's testimony, and a motion to preclude Alexander Hamilton's testimony. The court also addresses a defense response regarding a witness and references a legal precedent from 'Hamilton in Federal '78'.
DOJ-OGR-00013875.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and attorneys about a proposed stipulation. The stipulation would establish the timing of ownership for a property at 44 Kinnerton, which would then be used to argue the credibility of testimonies from Ms. Maxwell and a witness named Kate regarding when Ms. Maxwell resided there.
DOJ-OGR-00013871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) 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 testimony. The specific dispute centers on distinguishing between when Maxwell 'owned' a specific property versus when she began 'living' there (allegedly as early as 1992 or 1993).
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