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-00016891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell argues against admitting evidence provided by the government, stating it is new information that his client, Ms. Maxwell, was not shown during her deposition. He suggests that any confusion in her testimony about her past addresses in London could be due to the vagueness of questioning and her having lived in many different places.
DOJ-OGR-00016890.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe before a judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit land registry records for the Kinnerton Street and Stanhope Mews residences to challenge a witness's testimony about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts in 1992-1993. In exchange for admitting these records, he suggests the prosecution should be allowed to admit deposition testimony from Ms. Maxwell on the same subject.
DOJ-OGR-00016885.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is addressing the Court regarding the timeline of the defendant's residence at a property on Kinnerton Street in London. Everdell argues that despite a deposition statement where the defendant claimed to be there in 1992 or 1993, she did not own or reside at the property at that time, noting that another couple lived there prior to her purchase.
DOJ-OGR-00016884.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the need to establish a person's residency at 44 Kinnerton. Counsel mentions a potential new witness, Mr. Moran, and the judge rules that property ownership documents are admissible as evidence to argue the inference of residency.
DOJ-OGR-00016883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a dispute between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the late disclosure of a witness. The defense introduces Kevin Moran, the owner of the Nags Head Pub located across the street from Ms. Maxwell's residence at 44 Kinnerton Street, as a witness regarding the timing of her residence there. The prosecution objects, citing a lack of prior notice and missing '26.2 material' (witness statements).
DOJ-OGR-00016882.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely Ghislaine Maxwell's trial). Attorney Mr. Everdell is explaining to the Court why a potential witness was not disclosed earlier, stating they were still verifying the witness's utility. They discuss '26.2 material' (Jencks Act material) and reference a conversation from 'yesterday' (December 16th) regarding the trial schedule, aiming for closing arguments on the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding the late disclosure of defense witnesses. Specifically, there is confusion distinguishing between a plainclothes police officer from the UK seeking anonymity and another 'short witness' the defense planned to call on Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00016215.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a day's proceedings, where the judge adjourns the court until 8:45 a.m. on November 30, 2021. The judge expresses frustration with numerous 'sidebars' during the day's opening statements and instructs the attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, to meet before the next session to resolve issues in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00016214.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. They are discussing the logistical procedures for handling paper binders and folders for jurors and witnesses during a trial. The primary concern is to maintain the court-ordered anonymity of witnesses, ensuring their names are known to the jury but not published to the public in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00016212.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between Mr. Everdell and the Court. They are determining how to handle an exhibit that contains the full names of real people, agreeing to fully redact the names and seal the exhibit from public view. The Court specifies that the government will see a paper copy, while the witness, Ms. Williams, and the Court itself will view an electronic version.
DOJ-OGR-00016203.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Visoski. The prosecutor, Ms. Comey, presents two government exhibits, which Visoski identifies as fair and accurate photos of the exterior of Mr. Epstein's brownstone at 9 East 71st Street in New York. With no objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016198.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, a witness named Visoski, under questioning by government attorney Ms. Comey, identifies a photo of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence and provides a detailed description of the home's interior layout. During the testimony, "Government Exhibit 212" is admitted into evidence by the court without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00016197.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Visoski by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Visoski identifies Government Exhibit 202 as a photograph of the garage and exterior of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence. Visoski also mentions having previously performed audio/video work at the home.
DOJ-OGR-00016184.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In the excerpt, the judge confirms with Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no preliminary issues to address before the jury enters. The court then prepares to bring in the jury for Ms. Comey's witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016183.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge discussing procedural matters, including jury instructions for binders and the display of exhibits. The Judge also sets the upcoming trial schedule for the weeks of Christmas and New Year's, establishing daily start times (9:30 AM) and counsel meetings (8:45 AM).
DOJ-OGR-00016182.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and attorneys (Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim) while the jury is not present. The main topic is the logistical handling of binders containing sealed exhibits for the jury, with the parties agreeing to place them under the jurors' chairs before testimony begins.
DOJ-OGR-00016117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion regarding the handling of physical evidence binders and paper copies of exhibits. Prosecutor Ms. Moe requests that the government be allowed to review binders prepared by defense attorney Mr. Everdell before they are presented to the jury or witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00016116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge outlines concerns and procedures for displaying electronic evidence to a witness who is testifying under a pseudonym, emphasizing the need to prevent accidental identification and ensure the government can see exactly what is being presented. The judge agrees to the electronic method on the condition that paper backups are available and the record is clear, which Mr. Everdell accepts.
DOJ-OGR-00016115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the court and lawyers Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on courtroom logistics, such as arranging lawyers in a 'backup team' for social distancing, and the mechanics of presenting evidence, including physical binders for witnesses and folders for jurors, alongside a request to use electronic evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (related to Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing or fining of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of specific assets in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), specifically citing a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge notes that despite Maxwell's claim of inability to pay, she had significant assets, including $3.8 million reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00021597.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion about a bequest from an estate undergoing bankruptcy. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the Court that this bequest, while disclosed on a financial affidavit, is a 'tenuous asset' that should not be considered for fines because the estate has other claims and the bequest will likely be contested. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, is present but declines to comment further on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021596.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, discussing factual objections in a conspiracy case. The court affirms that Melissa, Virginia, and Carolyn were victims, detailing a recruitment chain, and credits Carolyn's testimony about her age. The discussion then shifts to the defendant's finances, specifically an objection to including a $10 million bequest from Epstein when determining her ability to pay a fine.
DOJ-OGR-00021595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, for Case 22-1426. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, where the court confirms an offense level increase to 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.
Interpretation of a sentencing guideline
Mr. Everdell argues that the commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative and interpretative, not merely a recitation of Congressional thought, and should be considered by the court.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding whether photographs accurately depict the location during the time of the conspiracy.
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.
Cross-examination and submission of evidence
Mr. Everdell questions Ms. Chapell about FedEx invoices, offers Defense Exhibit TC-1 into evidence under temporary seal, and concludes his questioning.
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.
Jury Instructions for Ms. Maxwell's case
Mr. Everdell argues for a supplemental jury instruction regarding the relevance of conduct in New Mexico to a conviction under New York law. The Court rejects the proposed instruction, stating it is incorrect and that the defense failed to seek a limiting instruction on the testimony earlier.
Cross-examination regarding aircraft flown for Mr. Epstein
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Visoski, about the timeline of aircraft owned by Mr. Epstein. The discussion covers the sale of a Hawker around 1994, the acquisition of a Boeing 727 around 2000, and the primary use of a Gulfstream in the intervening years.
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).
Cross-examination regarding a photograph
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Mr. Rodgers, about a photograph (exhibits GX250 and C10), asking if he has seen it before and if he recognizes the person in it. The witness tentatively identifies the person as Eva Dubin.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
Ghislaine Maxwell's and Jeffrey Epstein's conduct
Mr. Everdell questions witness Ms. Espinosa about whether she ever saw Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls during her six years of employment. Ms. Espinosa denies seeing any such activity.
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.
Impeachment of witness Juan Alessi
Mr. Everdell argues that they should be allowed to impeach Juan Alessi using his prior inconsistent statements to Sergeant Dawson regarding a burglary.
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.
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".
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.
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').
Courtroom procedure for handling documents and witness an...
Mr. Everdell agrees with the court's directions and explains the careful procedure they have planned for handling paper binders and manila folders to respect the court's ruling on witness anonymity.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
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').
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
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.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity