Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Michael William Aznaran
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kelly Maguire
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Court (Judge)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Examiner witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Raghu Sud
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dawson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PATRICK McHUGH
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Counsel judge interaction |
2
|
2 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel implied |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel implied |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
LAWRENCE VISOSKI
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Tracy Chapell
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
1
|
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-00017505.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a cross-examination from August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Visoski and Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on a ranch, which Mr. Everdell confirms is approximately 10,000 acres of wild country where guests hike. A significant point of discussion is the presence of rattlesnakes on the property, leading to a question about the need for proper footwear for hiking.
DOJ-OGR-00017502.jpg
This document is a single page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It shows the court going into recess after a cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. Two individuals, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, confirm to the judge that they have no matters to address before the break.
DOJ-OGR-00017501.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, suggests a break during the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, and the judge agrees, announcing a 45-minute lunch break for the jury and witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017489.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 by attorney Mr. Everdell. Visoski testifies about a renovation in the mid-90s and confirms he flew on numerous flights with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, interacting with them regularly throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The questioning is pivoting to Visoski's perception of the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00017487.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The witness clarifies that Ghislaine's New York residence was at 116 East 65th Street and confirms that from 1991 through the 2000s, Ghislaine maintained a residence separate from Jeffrey Epstein's. The witness also states they would pick up luggage for both Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein, but from their respective residences.
DOJ-OGR-00017465.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces exhibits LV4 and LV5 under seal to protect witness identities (pseudonyms), which is accepted by Prosecutor Ms. Comey and the Judge. The jury is instructed to view the documents in their folders without showing them to the gallery.
DOJ-OGR-00017464.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski during a trial related to the Epstein case (filed Aug 10, 2022). The witness confirms that Emmy Tayler was an assistant to Ghislaine Maxwell (starting around 1997) and that she flew on Epstein's planes. The witness also acknowledges familiarity with the name Andy Farmer but does not recall him being on any flights or knowing of any records of him flying.
DOJ-OGR-00017462.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. During the questioning, Visoski confirms that he knew an unnamed woman shown in photographs, had spoken with her frequently enough to have her phone number, and that she frequently traveled on Mr. Epstein's planes. The proceeding involves handling sealed evidence (photos marked LV3A and LV3B) carefully to prevent its display to the gallery.
DOJ-OGR-00017461.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. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, questions the witness about two photographs (Exhibits LV3A and LV3B) depicting a woman who shares a first name with 'Jane's true first name.' The exhibits are admitted into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of the individual, consistent with a prior court ruling regarding pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00017460.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by attorney Mr. Everdell. The testimony focuses on identifying that there was an assistant in 'Epstein's world' who shared the same first name and spelling as a person referred to as 'Jane,' and that the witness had met this assistant. Exhibits LV3A and LV3B are introduced for display.
DOJ-OGR-00017459.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief exchange between Mr. Everdell and the court during the cross-examination of a person named Visoski, where the court announces its intention to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00017458.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. They agree on a method for presenting exhibits to the jury using paper copies to protect the anonymity of witnesses who may testify under pseudonyms. The exhibits in question are to be offered under seal by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017457.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell. They discuss the scheduling of the proceedings, including the timing for a lunch break set for 12:30 and the decision to take an immediate five-minute recess for the jury. The judge instructs a Ms. Williams to escort the jury during the break.
DOJ-OGR-00017456.jpg
This is page 94 of a court transcript (Document 743, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Visoski, confirms during cross-examination that Epstein had an assistant with a specific name and that he had met her. The proceedings are interrupted by attorneys Everdell and Comey to discuss a 'choreography issue' regarding an exhibit that must be submitted under seal rather than displayed on screens.
DOJ-OGR-00017455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by Mr. Everdell. The questioning centers on three flights from 1996, 1997, and 1998, and Visoski's inability to confirm whether a woman referred to as 'Jane' was on them. The witness states they cannot distinguish between individuals with the same first name from over 20 years ago, especially without last names, and acknowledges there were other people in 'Epstein's world' with that same first name.
DOJ-OGR-00017450.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a pilot named Visoski during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony establishes that Visoski flew Jeffrey Epstein multiple times to Columbus, Ohio, the home of billionaire Les Wexner. The witness confirms Wexner's ownership of The Limited (parent company of Victoria's Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch) and states that Epstein considered Wexner both a friend and a client.
DOJ-OGR-00017410.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the direct examination of a witness named Visoski. The proceedings cover the stipulation and admission of Government Exhibits 11 through 16 and 1004, which includes a birth certificate from England and Wales. Ms. Comey notes that these exhibits are sealed to protect witnesses testifying under pseudonyms, and the Court grants permission for jurors to view these sealed binders.
DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural argument between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding whether defense counsel must provide the government with a binder of cross-examination materials before the cross-examination begins. The Court rules that if the defense does not provide the binder in advance, the binder will not be placed with the jury in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011671.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge outlines the protocol for showing electronic evidence to a witness who is testifying under a pseudonym, expressing concern that the material could inadvertently reveal the witness's identity to the gallery. The judge agrees to the proposed method of using limited screens, provided the government is kept fully aware and paper copies are available as a backup.
DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.
DOJ-OGR-00011659.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that under New Mexico law, the sexual activity in question was not illegal because it lacked force or coercion, and requests that jury instructions reflect this distinction. The Court agrees to consider how best to clarify this for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), the defense (Mr. Everdell), and the Judge regarding jury instructions for a Mann Act conspiracy count. The specific issue involves whether sexual conduct was illegal under New Mexico law versus New York law, and the age of consent regarding a specific witness.
DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between the government (represented by Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge. The discussion centers on whether the potential illegality of sexual conduct in New Mexico can be used as evidence for an enticement charge under New York law. The judge expresses skepticism about the government's approach, pointing out that the charges were not filed under New Mexico law and cautioning against confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
Sentencing guidelines and Ex Post Facto Clause
Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply, due to implications of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
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.
Jury Instructions/Charge Language
Discussion regarding the specific wording of sex trafficking charges and conspiracy counts.
Objection to scope of questioning
Argument regarding the relevance of Maxwell's father's death and her housing history.
Request for jury instructions
Mr. Everdell requests that the jury be explicitly instructed that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, and that related testimony should not be considered as evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court agrees to a separate language change regarding the defendant's name.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding flight rules, mingling with passengers, and cockpit procedures.
Calling next witness
Everdell calls Raghu Sud to the stand.
Jury Instruction 44
Mr. Everdell reads a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses with prior felony convictions.
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.
Direct Examination regarding search video
Discussion of Government Exhibit 296 showing a property search.
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.
Objection and procedural matters
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the jury viewing the exhibit and informs the court he has a binder for the witness and the court.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8 (headshots of cast members).
Admitting exhibits
Mr. Everdell states he has no objection to the exhibits.
Request for updated witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
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.
Objection to presenting evidence before witness testimony
Mr. Everdell objects to the prosecution's plan to show the jury photographs and a bag of costumes. He argues that this evidence should not be presented until 'witness 3' testifies to establish its relevance, expressing concern that it would prejudice the jury if the witness does not end up testifying.
Volume of evidence from a 2019 search
Mr. Everdell argues that millions of files were taken from Mr. Epstein's residence, but the government has only presented a small portion to the jury, and he wants to establish the total volume.
Cross-examination regarding flights and Les Wexner
Questioning regarding flights to Columbus, Ohio and the relationship between Epstein and Les Wexner.
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).
Exhibit Identification
Inquiry about trial mark for the 1996 London home sale agreement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity