Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
12
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
38 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| 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-00014688.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) regarding a note received from the jury requesting office supplies, a specific transcript ('Matt's transcript'), and a definition of the legal term 'enticement'. Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the existing instruction stating that such terms have their 'ordinary everyday meanings'.
DOJ-OGR-00014676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge expresses frustration to Ms. Comey (Government) about a three-hour delay in providing requested transcripts to the jury. The Judge also instructs court staff (Ms. Williams) to contact alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00014672.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 captures a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding how to answer a jury question concerning conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. The defense argues for repeating limiting instructions to prevent broad application of testimony, while the Court argues a simple 'yes' is the substantive answer and the limiting instruction is nonresponsive.
DOJ-OGR-00014671.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about a jury's question. The core issue is whether the testimony of a witness named 'Annie' can be considered for conspiracy counts, given a prior instruction that her testimony did not describe illegal sexual activity. The judge rules that the testimony is relevant and can be permissibly considered by the jury for those counts.
DOJ-OGR-00014670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The attorneys debate the necessity and scope of a limiting instruction for the jury regarding the testimony of a witness named 'Annie' and its application to specific counts in an indictment. The judge expresses a clear opinion on the matter, while the attorneys present differing views on how to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00014669.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the Judge coordinating the dismissal of the jury for the evening and subsequently addressing 'Court Exhibit 9,' a note from the jury asking if 'Annie's testimony' can be considered as conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. Ms. Comey argues the answer is yes, while Mr. Everdell requests a moment to confer.
DOJ-OGR-00014652.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge (THE COURT) outlines the logistical procedures for jury deliberations to the involved parties (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell). The discussion covers the daily schedule for deliberations, the materials the jury will be given (instructions, verdict form, exhibits), and the roles of court staff in managing the process.
DOJ-OGR-00014561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and several attorneys regarding the final preparations for trial exhibits. The counsel confirms that the exhibits have been reviewed by both the defense and the government and are ready for the jury. The judge provides instructions to mark the finalized list as a Court Exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00011770.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the end-of-day dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell, where the judge expresses frustration with numerous sidebars during the day's openings. The judge schedules a meeting for 8:45 a.m. the next day to address issues proactively before adjourning court until November 30, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00011769.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the logistics of providing physical evidence binders to jurors while maintaining witness anonymity. The Judge emphasizes that while jurors will know witness names, those names must not be published to the general courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00011767.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between Mr. Everdell and the Court about handling a sensitive exhibit. They agree that because the exhibit contains the full names of real people, it must be sealed from the public, with different formats (electronic and paper) provided to specific parties like the witness, Ms. Williams, and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00011758.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. During a direct examination by attorney Ms. Comey, a witness named Mr. Visoski identifies Government Exhibits 932 and 704 as fair and accurate photos of Mr. Epstein's brownstone residence at 9 East 71st Street in New York. With no objection from opposing counsel Mr. Everdell, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00011753.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Visoski. Ms. Comey (prosecution) introduces a photo of the pool area at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house as evidence (Exhibit 212). Visoski then describes the interior layout of the house, detailing the entrance courtyard, a large waiting area, a circular staircase, and the location of the master bedroom upstairs.
DOJ-OGR-00011747.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of witness Mr. Visoski by Ms. Comey, focusing on Ghislaine Maxwell's role as household manager for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Visoski also describes the evolution of communication technology used by Epstein's staff, transitioning from pagers in the early 1990s to cellphones later in the decade.
DOJ-OGR-00011746.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. During the direct examination by attorney Ms. Comey, a witness named Mr. Visoski identifies Ghislaine Maxwell in two separate government exhibits, 115 and 111. The exhibits are subsequently admitted into evidence by the court without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00011742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Visoski testifies about being hired as a pilot by Mr. Epstein. Visoski states that another pilot, David Rogers, with whom they had worked previously, was hired at the same time. During the testimony, the witness identifies Jeffrey Epstein in 'Government Exhibit 112', which is then successfully entered into evidence by the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00011738.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. It details procedural discussions between the Judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding jury instructions for handling binders, the display of nonsealed exhibits, and a recess. The text also outlines the court's plan for the trial schedule over the Christmas and New Year's holidays.
DOJ-OGR-00011737.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys outside the presence of the jury. The attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, discuss the logistics and timing of distributing binders of sealed exhibits to the jurors. They ultimately agree to place the binders under the jurors' chairs before they are needed for testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017449.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. An attorney questions Visoski about Ghislaine Maxwell's presence on flights with Mr. Epstein, using a document to refresh the witness's memory regarding specific flights to Interlochen that Maxwell may not have been on. Visoski confirms Epstein was always on the aircraft but is uncertain about Maxwell's presence on every trip.
DOJ-OGR-00017440.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski (likely a pilot) by Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes that in the 2000s, Visoski coordinated flight arrangements through Sarah Kellen. The witness confirms that while he received logistical details like date, time, and destination, he was not necessarily informed of the passenger manifest ahead of time.
DOJ-OGR-00017439.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on the frequency of Visoski's phone communications with Sarah Kellen, leading to the confirmation of her cellphone number as 917-855-3363 after the witness's memory is refreshed with another document.
DOJ-OGR-00017437.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Mr. Everdell questions Visoski about flight logs (document 3527-07) to establish when Sarah Kellen began flying on Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft. Visoski confirms that Kellen was flying on Epstein's planes in the early 2000s and the questioning pivots to her role as Epstein's personal assistant.
DOJ-OGR-00017436.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Visoski's interactions with Sarah Kellen, establishing her role in scheduling flights in the 2000s and attempting to pinpoint the date of her first flight on one of Epstein's planes, suggested to be September 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00017429.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Visoski, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Mr. Visoski's experience on a Gulf Stream airplane, specifically whether Mr. Epstein restricted his movement to the cockpit during flights. The transcript ends as Mr. Everdell begins to ask about Mr. Epstein's potential involvement in sex acts with underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00017428.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The excerpt captures a brief exchange between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim about the estimated remaining time for the proceeding. The judge also informs Ms. Sternheim that they have requested the courtroom temperature be raised for her comfort.
Correction of paragraph number
Correcting the judge saying Paragraph 9 instead of Paragraph 29.
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Admissibility of property ownership records
Mr. Everdell argues for the admission of records showing the O'Neills owned a property until 1997, not Ms. Maxwell, to counter testimony about her residence there.
Presentation of video evidence and order of witnesses
A dialogue in court where Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss how to show a sensitive video to the jury while protecting privacy, and confirm the upcoming witness schedule.
Sufficiency of testimony for aiding and abetting charge
Mr. Everdell argues to the court that there is a lack of testimony to support the charge that Ghislaine Maxwell aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein by enticing 'Jane' to travel to New York, a key element of the substantive count (Count Two).
Redactions in documents
Mr. Everdell agreed with the Court's assessment regarding the permissibility of naming individuals not granted anonymity.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
Redacted evidence and witness stipulation
Mr. Everdell discusses the logistics of preparing redacted versions of evidence (massage room photos) and informs the court that the government and defense have agreed to a testimonial stipulation for witness Sergeant Michael Dawson.
Epstein's residences in Palm Beach
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the location of Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way and a time when Epstein temporarily moved to a rental property during renovations.
Scope of cross-examination for witness Ms. Espinosa
Mr. Everdell informs the court about an agreement reached with the government to not cross-examine the first witness, Ms. Espinosa, about a civil lawsuit involving Ms. Galindo and Epstein.
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.
Response to a juror's note
Mr. Everdell argues that the answer to the jurors' question should be 'no', based on his interpretation of their note and the court's instructions regarding the purpose of travel.
Request for updated witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Border crossing data systems (TECS and APIS)
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Aznaran, about the definition of 'border crossing' and the mechanisms by which traveler data is entered into government databases. Aznaran explains that international airline manifests are submitted to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then links to the TECS system.
Exclusion of evidence (Government Exhibits 288, 270, 296)
Mr. Everdell argues that a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296) should be excluded because it shows a photograph on a wall that the Court has already excluded as a separate piece of evidence (Exhibit 288).
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
Mr. Everdell informs the court that after conferring with the government, they are withdrawing their request for a limiting instruction, believing it would be counterproductive ('the cure is worse than the disease').
Admitting exhibits
Mr. Everdell states he has no objection to the exhibits.
Conscious avoidance jury charge
Mr. Everdell argues that a 'conscious avoidance' charge would invite the jury to convict on an improper basis. The Court responds by asking for a specific response to the argument about the defendant's lack of knowledge.
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
Mr. Everdell informs the court that after conferring with the government, they are withdrawing their request for a limiting instruction, believing it would be counterproductive ('the cure is worse than the disease').
Objection to new evidence
Mr. Everdell argues that the government provided new information last week, that his client (Ms. Maxwell) was never shown these documents during her deposition, and that her testimony could be confused due to having multiple past residences.
Admissibility of Government Exhibits 250, 251, and 270
Mr. Everdell discusses photographic evidence with the judge. He confirms Exhibit 270 will not be offered, notes the prior exclusion of Exhibit 251 (a photo of a naked toddler), and argues that Exhibit 250, which depicts Jeffrey Epstein with a young girl, should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial.
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.
Procedure for handling a sensitive exhibit
Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss the process for entering an exhibit into evidence that contains the full names of real people. They agree that the names must be redacted, the exhibit sealed from the public, and that specific parties (the Court, Ms. Williams, the witness, the government) will view either electronic or paper versions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity