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 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 hearing discussing redaction procedures for a letter and Exhibit A, while waiting for juror... | 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... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury instructions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine M... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-09 | Court discussion | A discussion took place at the end of the court day regarding the defense's plans for witnesses J... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District Court (li... | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2021-12-20 | Court adjournment | The court session was adjourned to 8:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20, 2021. | Court (implied Southern Dis... | View |
| 2021-12-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussion regarding the admissibility and scope of expert testimony by Mr. Flatley. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the nature of Mr. Flatley's testimony, specifically whether he is... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument regarding jury instructions in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The discussion focused on... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument and clarification between an attorney (Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge (The Court) r... | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Pretrial conference | A court hearing where procedural matters were discussed, including an exception to witness seques... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court hearing/proceeding | Discussion between the Court and counsel regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning the... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court hearing | Legal arguments were presented regarding the relevance of sexual conduct in New Mexico to a consp... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court hearing | A legal discussion took place regarding the charges in an indictment, specifically focusing on th... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding the potential for defense experts to testi... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court (judge) and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the legal correctness of a pote... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Legal proceeding | A discussion in court between an attorney (Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge regarding jury instruction... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court hearing | A court hearing to discuss pre-trial matters, including the admissibility of a statement under ru... | Court | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Court adjournment | A court session was adjourned until December 9, 2021, at 8:45 a.m. after a brief discussion about... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-04-01 | N/A | Court Hearing | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Review of Defense Exhibit LV3A | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018361.jpg
This document is a single page (page 24 of 261) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, relating to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange where the Court takes a pause, confirms that attorney Mr. Rohrbach is ready, and then orders the jury to be brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00018360.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a legal argument regarding the redaction of documents to protect the identity of a person referred to as 'Jane' from being cross-referenced with public records on PACER. The Judge instructs the attorneys (Ms. Moe and Mr. Rohrbach) to find a middle ground that protects witness privacy while acknowledging facts already in the public trial transcript before the jury enters.
DOJ-OGR-00018356.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00018355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and the judge. Attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the relevance of questioning a witness about their attorney, who is present in the courtroom. Sternheim contends that the attorney's role in the 'Epstein Fund' and the fact that he wrote a book about the witness's story are pertinent facts for the jury to consider during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018350.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Court. The conversation centers on the government's plan to question a witness about photos of celebrities and nude women in Epstein's residence without submitting the photos as evidence. The Court reserves judgment on the admission of any photo exhibits but indicates it finds the proposed line of questioning acceptable.
DOJ-OGR-00018341.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a judge instructs a jury about an upcoming witness's testimony. The judge clarifies that because the witness was over the age of consent, her alleged sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein was not illegal under the indictment, and she is not considered a victim in this case. The jury is strictly forbidden from using this testimony to convict the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, or to infer anything about the character or criminal propensity of either Epstein or Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018323.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018101.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of three witnesses: Paul Kane, Lisa Rocchio, and Juan Patricio Alessi, detailing the attorneys who questioned them (Rohrbach, Menninger, Pomerantz, Comey) and the corresponding page numbers. It also lists various Government Exhibits (Nos. 761, 298, 297, 299, 606, 113, 114, and 2A/2C-2W) and the pages where they were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The questioning establishes that Dr. Rocchio has not personally published research or conducted metadata studies on the topic of "grooming." It also confirms his testimony relies on the work of other experts and that there is scientific disagreement within the field.
DOJ-OGR-00017893.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Kane by Ms. Menninger. The questioning concerns a document describing a student as a 'self-employed interior decorator' who is represented by an agent. Defense attorney Mr. Rohrbach objects to the agent's name being read aloud, arguing lack of relevance, and the Court sustains the objection, instructing the jury to look at the document themselves instead.
DOJ-OGR-00017891.jpg
A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Rohrbach examines witness Mr. Kane regarding Government Exhibit 761, a student application for 12th grade. The testimony reveals the student's present school is the Alexander W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts, while the exhibit itself is sealed to protect the student/witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00017890.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument regarding the admissibility of a document. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues against an objection from defense counsel, stating that the document qualifies as an 'adoptive business record' of a school because it was integrated into their files and relied upon, despite a witness's testimony questioning its reliability. The judge ultimately overrules the objection, allowing the document into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017887.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 a witness named Mr. Kane by Mr. Rohrbach. The testimony focuses on establishing the business records foundation for documents from the 'Professional Children's School,' specifically detailing how applications are reviewed, how families are contacted, and confirming that records are retained in the ordinary course of business. Following this testimony, the government moves to offer an exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records the direct examination of a witness, Kane, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding the authentication of an enrollment application for the Professional Children's School, marked as Government Exhibit 761. An opposing attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects on the grounds of hearsay, but the court overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Paul Kane by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. Mr. Kane identifies himself as the director of finance for the Professional Children's School in New York City and provides a brief description of the school's history and purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00017880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures the court resuming session, with the judge addressing the jury and counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, then calls Paul Kane as the next witness to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00017878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) before a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a 'contact book' versus a 'household manual,' with the government arguing that the contact book belongs to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and/or Jeffrey Epstein and constitutes statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy. The judge acknowledges the government's argument regarding the hearsay exception.
DOJ-OGR-00017876.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over the admissibility of a household manual and a contact book. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues the items are not being offered for the truth of their contents to avoid hearsay objections, while the opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, counters by raising issues of relevance. The discussion revolves around legal rules of evidence, specifically sections 803(6) and 901.
DOJ-OGR-00017873.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses JANE, MATT, and DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers. The index also lists Defendant and Government exhibits that were received into evidence and their respective page numbers in the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00017871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and prosecutors Ms. Comey and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the scheduling of arguments related to 'piercing privilege' and 'waiver' concerning a witness named Jane. The parties also discuss the timeline of the trial, with the government estimating they have about one more week of testimony before resting.
DOJ-OGR-00017866.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Besselsen, who identifies a document as an application to an arts camp from the summer of 1996. The witness confirms that an address on the document appears to be different from another address they were viewing, after which one attorney concludes questioning and another, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination.
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