Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Adversarial in court |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Special Agent Maguire
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness 3
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
M. Maxwell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
She (Defendant)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Parkinson
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PATRICK McHUGH
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kelly Maguire
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed male
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
potential witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Juror
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Keith Rooney
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant (implied)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness 3
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chapell
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Aznaran
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding supplemental jury instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference between Defense and Government | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016968.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between counsel (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge (THE COURT) about editing the language in a document related to transportation. The parties agree to amend a phrase, and the judge, acting on a suggestion from the court clerk, decides to simply cut the words "or foreign" to leave the phrase as "transporting an individual in interstate commerce."
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about finalizing the wording for jury instructions. The parties agree on language concerning the defendant's knowledge of a person named Jane being under 17 and the context of 'interstate commerce'.
DOJ-OGR-00016966.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Everdell and the Judge discuss specific wording amendments to jury instructions or the verdict form, specifically requesting that Count Four be specified as relating 'solely to Jane.' They also discuss a discrepancy between the federal statute age definition (under 18) and New York law (under 17) regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016964.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal case, likely a hearing or trial. It involves discussion about jury instructions, testimony regarding sexual contact between Jane and Epstein in New Mexico, and the testimony of Kate and Annie. The attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, are arguing about the relevance of certain evidence and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00016963.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.
DOJ-OGR-00016962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where Mr. Everdell requests an addition to the jury instructions concerning the testimony of witnesses Kate and Ms. Farmer. Mr. Rohrbach argues against this addition, claiming the existing instructions are sufficient and that adding more would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016961.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell requests that the jury instructions be updated to explicitly state that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, so their testimony cannot be considered evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court is also noted as agreeing to change references from 'the defendant' to 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge ('THE COURT') and an attorney ('MR. EVERDELL'). Mr. Everdell is advocating for a new proposed jury instruction, arguing that its 'dominant purpose' language is more accurate as it is based on Second Circuit case law from Judge Rakoff, unlike the previous instruction's language which he claims was invented by Judge Sand without basis in circuit law.
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00016954.jpg
Page 28 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt details a legal debate between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell before the Judge ('The Court') regarding specific jury instructions concerning 'persuasion and inducement or enticement to travel' and 'significant or motivating purpose.' The Judge overrules a request regarding causation definitions.
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.
DOJ-OGR-00016952.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. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions defining 'causation,' 'inducement,' and 'persuasion' in relation to a victim referred to as 'Jane' traveling in interstate commerce. The defense seeks specific language linking inducement to the travel, while the prosecution argues that the terms inherently imply causation.
DOJ-OGR-00016951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An unnamed speaker contends that a specific instruction on causation for terms like 'persuasion' and 'inducement' would confuse the jury and is not required by precedent from the Broxmeyer case. In response, Mr. Everdell argues that such an instruction would not heighten the level of proof but would simply clarify the meaning of the words as they are used in the statute.
DOJ-OGR-00016950.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing for specific jury instructions regarding the definition of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'enticement' based on the precedent *U.S. v. Broxmeyer*. He proposes language stating that these elements are only satisfied if they specifically *caused* the victim, referred to as 'Jane,' to travel in interstate commerce.
DOJ-OGR-00016949.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and a judge regarding specific wording changes in a legal document. Mr. Everdell proposes omitting the phrase 'or foreign,' suggests replacing 'an individual' with 'Jane' to specify Count Two, and reiterates a previously overruled objection to the word 'coerced.' The Court accepts some changes while confirming others have been overruled, thereby refining the document's language for the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where attorney Rohrbach argues for the distinct meanings of "force" and "coercion" in a sex trafficking statute. The Court overrules an objection by attorney Everdell, who then ensures his objection is preserved for the record before moving on in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00016944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach of the government. They are collaborating to edit statutory text for a legal document, agreeing to remove language related to foreign commerce and coercion to better fit the evidence of the case. The agreed-upon changes include using ellipses and adding the phrase 'knowingly persuades, induces, or entices'.
DOJ-OGR-00016942.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach debating the specific language regarding the age of 'minors' in Count Five of the indictment, which covers a conspiracy period from 2001 to 2004. The prosecutor clarifies that for sex trafficking counts, the relevant age of consent is statutorily defined as 18.
DOJ-OGR-00016939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach (for the government) about jury instructions. The main point of contention is whether to explicitly state 'under the age of 17' for an offense, with Mr. Everdell arguing it's necessary for clarity to distinguish from other individuals mentioned in flight logs whose ages are unknown. The government acknowledges the age is an element of the offense but questions its inclusion in a summary.
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.
DOJ-OGR-00016932.jpg
A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, withdraws a request regarding Counts Five and Six due to statutory changes regarding 'foreign commerce.' The Judge works with defense attorney Mr. Everdell to specifically remove the words 'and foreign' from page 15 of the document under discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00016929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where attorneys debate the legal terminology in an indictment. Mr. Everdell argues against including 'and foreign' in the commerce charge, suggesting a lack of evidence. In response, Mr. Rohrbach, for the government, cites flight records showing the defendant traveled overseas with Jeffrey Epstein and a 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, asserting this evidence supports the 'foreign commerce' element.
DOJ-OGR-00016928.jpg
This is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place in open court without the jury present, involving a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the draft jury charge and verdict form. The Judge outlines the process for reviewing requested changes to the draft charge page by page.
Sentencing guidelines and leadership enhancement
The Court asks Mr. Everdell if he has any other points to raise from his papers, specifically mentioning a question about a leadership enhancement.
Objection to scope of questioning
Argument regarding the relevance of Maxwell's father's death and her housing history.
Scheduling of Defense Case
Discussion regarding the timeline for the defense to present their case and the scheduling of the charging conference.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Calling next witness
Everdell calls Raghu Sud to the stand.
Cross-examination regarding employment with Jeffrey Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the start date of his employment with Jeffrey Epstein, his hiring of Larry Visoski, their respective roles as chief pilot and co-captain, and a role swap that occurred in late 2004.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding the admissibility of property ownership records to impeach witness testimony.
Issue with fourth witness
Mr. Everdell informs the court of a small issue regarding the fourth witness (Mr. Rogers) and requests time to confer with the government.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Proposed Jury Instruction on 'Dominant Purpose'
Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that a new proposed jury instruction is more accurate because it tracks case law development from the Second Circuit, specifically from Judge Rakoff, as opposed to older language invented by Judge Sand that was not based on circuit case law.
Trial Logistics
Discussion regarding the handling of paper evidence binders and maintaining witness anonymity during cross-examination.
Juror Exhibits
Request to put folders with exhibits under jurors' chairs.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
Cross-examination regarding photographs found during search
Everdell questions Parkinson about a specific photo of a woman found in Epstein's house and confirms no other photos of her were presented during direct testimony or found in the video evidence.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibits 234 and 245
Discussion regarding photos of Epstein's desk and bookcase.
Stipulation of facts and admission of exhibits
Discussion regarding the admission of exhibits DH1-DH4, J2, A5, and stipulations regarding UK property records.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8 (headshots of cast members).
Jury Instructions/Verdict Form Wording
Discussion regarding wording on pages 25 and 26 of a legal document, specifically regarding 'Jane', 'interstate commerce', and statutory age limits.
Jury Instruction 44
Mr. Everdell reads a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses with prior felony convictions.
Admissibility of property records and need for an additio...
Mr. Everdell discusses with the Court newly obtained property records for Stanhope Mews, which he intends to use to impeach a witness's deposition testimony about their residence. He argues that despite the government's objection, additional factual development is needed, possibly requiring another witness, to counter the government's argument.
Timeline of Ms. Maxwell's property ownership and residency
Mr. Everdell explains the complex leasehold title of a property purchased by Ms. Maxwell, stating the deal closed in 1997. He argues this evidence, along with witness testimony from 'Kate', proves Ms. Maxwell did not live at the property before 1996, countering allegations of events in '94 and '95.
Legal definitions
Verbal exchange regarding case law and definitions for jury instructions.
TECS Reports
Confirmation that Aznaran ran three traveler reports in the TECS system for Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer.
Jury Instructions / Case Law
Discussion regarding the use of the word 'dominant' in jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 2421, citing United States v. An Soon Kim.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity