MR. ROHRBACH
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
William Brown
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Gill
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brown
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Kane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Gill
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Kane
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANINE GILL VELEZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Besselsen
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Janine Gill Velez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-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.
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).
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of personnel records for Sky Roberts.
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.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the witness's employment.
Response to application
Drafting response expected by lunch break.
Verification of forms at Mar-a-Lago
Mr. Rohrbach interviewed Ms. Gill regarding whether Mar-a-Lago independently verifies information on forms.
Admissibility of exhibits 823 and 824
Oral argument regarding whether exhibit 824 adds value beyond 823 and the need to speak with Ms. Gill.
Jury Instructions
Discussion regarding instructions for alleged victim Kate and New Mexico law.
Redactions
Discussion regarding the docketing of a letter with proposed redactions.
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.
Direct Examination
Legal examination in court
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the identity of Green Lake Lodge and authentication of photos.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding the authenticity of a personnel action notice for Sky Roberts.
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.
Scheduling
Discussion regarding delaying Brian's testimony.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jury Instructions / Closing Arguments
Discussion regarding the 'empty chair' argument and government motivations.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity