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 proceeding | A discussion between the judge and counsel to finalize jury instructions and correct a typographi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the use of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness's testim... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where attorneys discuss the admissibility of evidence regarding a property transfer. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between the judge and attorneys for the government and defense regarding pr... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding the editing of a legal document, specifically focusing on the l... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court session | An afternoon court session where the government disclosed the discovery of additional text messag... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the judge issued guidance on witness testimony, precluded testimony from... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion was held to determine if a witness who tested positive for COVID could testify remot... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding amendments to jury instruction number 34. The term "minors" is be... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal discussion took place regarding the distinction between 'force' and 'coercion' in a sex t... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel regarding the logistics for closing arguments, specifi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Ms. Chapell regarding a package shipment and related evidence. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 824, specifically w... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion on preliminary matters before the court, focusing on the public availability of admi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion was held to finalize the wording of statutory text in a legal document. The parties ... | Southern District Court (in... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument during a court proceeding about the relevance of cross-examination questions dir... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach before the Court regarding the s... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding a request for a witness, who has contracted COVID and is quaranti... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument regarding jury instructions in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The discussion focuses on... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between a judge and counsel (Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell) about the speci... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place in court regarding the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on evidence r... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding closing arguments, jury instructions, and ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding to discuss narrowing the scope of an affidavit and to plan the logistics and t... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Chapell. Defense Exhibit TC-1, related to FedEx invoices, was of... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of insurance records as evidence of emplo... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013870.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the admissibility of evidence related to a property transfer. One party presents land registry records and an attorney's files to show ownership passing from 'the O'Neills' to 'Ms. Maxwell' in the 1990s. An opposing attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues this evidence is overly confusing, involves complex British real estate law, and is irrelevant to when the defendant actually occupied the property, and would therefore prejudice the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013864.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. The judge provides guidance on witness testimony, confirms the preclusion of testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards, and addresses a government objection to admitting a 1996 sale agreement for a London property as evidence. The discussion involves several attorneys, including Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00013857.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a legal proceeding, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses WILLIAM BROWN, ANNIE FARMER, DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN, and JANICE SWAIN by various attorneys, including Mr. Rohrbach, Ms. Pomerantz, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Sternheim, referencing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00013834.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 enticement charges. Rohrbach contends that the defendant, along with an associate named Epstein, manipulated a person named Jane by building a multi-year relationship and playing on her 'hopes and desires' to entice her to travel to New York. This conduct, Rohrbach argues, squarely meets the legal definition of enticement, and therefore the charges should stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013608.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of Supervisory Investigator Brown by attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibits 21 and 22. The court admits Exhibit 21 under seal to protect witness identities, and Brown testifies that Exhibit 22 is a DMV image capture of the same person, stored in a photosystem database.
DOJ-OGR-00013607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Brown. The witness identifies Government Exhibit 21 as a fair and accurate report from the New York State DMV's 'compass database,' which they state is used to store records of ID cards and driver's licenses in the ordinary course of business. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is noted as offering the exhibit on behalf of the government.
DOJ-OGR-00013590.jpg
This document is the final page (49 of 49) of a court transcript index filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists the examination of witness Tracy Chapell by attorneys Mr. Rohrbach (Direct) and Mr. Everdell (Cross). It also indexes Government Exhibits 801-803 and Defendant Exhibit TC-1.
DOJ-OGR-00013586.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell successfully offers 'Defense Exhibit TC-1', related to FedEx business invoices, into evidence under a temporary seal. After the exhibit is admitted and made available to the jury, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and the witness is excused by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013569.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The testimony concerns a package sent on October 7, 2002, which listed the names Cecilia Steen and Jeffrey E. Epstein, had a shipping address of 457 Madison Avenue, New York, and was sent to a recipient named Caroline in West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00013568.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony focuses on Government Exhibit 802, establishing that a package was sent by J. Epstein from 457 Madison Avenue, New York, on December 12, 2002. The recipient was an individual with the first name Cardine, located in West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00013567.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient as a person named Carolyn in West Palm Beach, Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00013564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where government exhibits are being entered into evidence. Attorney Mr. Rohrbach questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 802 as an invoice connected to Jeffrey E. Epstein's account. The government then requests that this exhibit be placed under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00013562.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) featuring the direct examination of Ms. Chapell, a Senior Paralegal at Federal Express Corporation. Questioned by Mr. Rohrbach, she confirms her role involves responding to subpoenas and producing records. She testifies to her familiarity with FedEx's billing invoices, explaining they are generated through 'scanning events' and the revenue service department.
DOJ-OGR-00013561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the court proceedings as they resume, with the judge bringing in the jury and then allowing the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, to call his next witness, Tracy Chapell, for direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013558.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The judge and attorneys for the government and defense discuss the scheduling of future trial events, such as the charge conference and closing arguments, which depends on when the defense will rest its case. A defense attorney, Ms. Comey, also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena issued to a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00013540.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript. The document also includes a list of government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013539.jpg
This document is a short excerpt from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, the judge discusses the briefing schedule with two individuals, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before adjourning the court. The session is formally adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 9, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00013537.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and the deadline for a government brief. The judge expresses a preference to hold the conference on Friday, while the government's attorney suggests filing their brief by 8 p.m. that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00013406.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the Judge ('The Court') and Ms. Comey regarding 'Government Exhibit 52' and whether the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine a witness named Mr. Alessi. The Judge notes a potential misunderstanding about the defense's opportunity to cross-examine, while Ms. Comey asserts that extensive examination and voir dire of Mr. Alessi occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00013311.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Gill Velez. The questioning attorney, Ms. Sternheim, establishes that Velez began working for a property management company in 2007. Consequently, Velez confirms she has no personal knowledge of how a document from 2000 was created or the information it contains, nor any knowledge of the company's record-keeping practices prior to her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013310.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a moment in a trial where an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, points the jury to a specific line in "Government Exhibit 14" that reads "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the witness, Gill Velez.
DOJ-OGR-00013309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Gill Velez, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. They are discussing Government's Exhibit 823-R, a personnel action notice for an individual named Sky Roberts. The key piece of information extracted from the exhibit during this exchange is that Sky Roberts' date of hire was April 11, 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00013308.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Gill Velez testifies during direct examination by prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 823, identified as a personnel action notice from Mar-a-Lago records documenting the hiring of Sky Roberts. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00013305.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It begins with a brief legal discussion regarding business records and the case 'Matter of Ollag Construction Equipment.' Following the entry of the jury, the Government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) calls witness Janine Gill Velez for direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The judge overrules a relevance objection made by Ms. Sternheim regarding evidence or a case mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach, but allows her to state the objection for the record.
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.
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.
Verification of forms at Mar-a-Lago
Mr. Rohrbach interviewed Ms. Gill regarding whether Mar-a-Lago independently verifies information on forms.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Calling and examining a witness
Mr. Rohrbach calls Janine Gill to the stand and begins the direct examination by greeting her.
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.
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.
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