Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel parties |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness 1
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gregory Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael Dawson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
colleague
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McHugh
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Professional representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Raghu Sud
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sergeant Dawson
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge (Honor)
|
Professional |
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-00010248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the case USA v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a discussion between the Judge and defense attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a juror who had posted on social media and was a victim of sexual abuse himself. The defense argues that the juror's history and desire to be on an 'interesting' jury involving sexual abuse victims impact his ability to be impartial, and they discuss whether he followed court instructions during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010247.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that a juror's post-trial behavior contradicts his claim of wanting privacy regarding his own sexual abuse. Everdell cites the juror's public Facebook posts about serving on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and his direct comments to victim Annie Farmer as evidence that he wanted to be known as a victim and a "champion of sexual abuse." The Court acknowledges the need to question the juror about these apparent contradictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010246.jpg
This is page 31 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. Defense attorneys Sternheim and Everdell are arguing with the Judge regarding the scope of questioning for a juror who allegedly failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense is pushing to question the juror about his public statements to reporters and a specific post directed to victim Annie Farmer, while the Judge refuses to allow questions about internal jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010245.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing a colloquy during jury selection for a case involving sexual abuse of a minor. The judge denies a request for specific follow-up questions to a potential juror, reasoning that the defense had not made similar requests for another juror and that core questions of fairness had been addressed. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then challenges the judge on whether the juror was adequately questioned about the specific, sensitive nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010244.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a juror's history of sexual abuse (involving a stepbrother and a friend) is relevant to establishing bias, as it may align with victim testimony heard during the trial. The Court denies Everdell's request to ask the juror specific questions about their therapy and trauma, citing that the defense failed to propose comparable questions during the original jury selection (voir dire).
DOJ-OGR-00014745.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge thanks and discharges the jury, acknowledging their service during the pandemic. Following the jury's dismissal, the court and counsel (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) discuss post-verdict logistics, including a briefing schedule and the presentence report, concluding with Ms. Sternheim requesting a court order for Ms. Maxwell to receive a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00014741.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. The judge discusses a sustained objection and proper redactions with counsel before the court recesses. After reconvening, the judge reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of an individual named Larry Visoski.
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell argues that conduct and travel occurring solely in New Mexico cannot legally form the basis for a conviction of his client, Ms. Maxwell, under New York law, and he requests a supplemental jury instruction to this effect. The judge rejects the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that Mr. Everdell failed to seek to exclude the related testimony earlier.
DOJ-OGR-00014722.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues his interpretation of a recent note from the jury, contending that they are confused about whether they can convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, on Count Four based solely on events in New Mexico and are unclear on the jury instructions. The Court acknowledges his position but expresses skepticism about the assumptions being made.
DOJ-OGR-00014721.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A judge explains the decision to extend daily jury deliberations by one hour due to a significant spike in COVID-19 cases from the omicron variant in New York City. The judge's concern is that jurors or trial participants might need to quarantine, which would risk the completion of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An attorney argues that the existing instructions are sufficient and that sending new, confusing ones would be a mistake. The judge ('THE COURT') then critiques the defense's newly proposed instruction, stating it addresses a count the jury didn't ask about and contains a legally incorrect paragraph concerning sexual activity involving a person named 'Jane' in states other than New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014710.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell are discussing a response to a note received from the jury. The Judge decides to refer the jury back to Instruction Number 21 on page 28. Additionally, the parties discuss extending the schedule for jury deliberations for the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two lawyers (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) about a jury's confusion. The jury appears to be mistaking New Mexico law for New York law regarding Count Four. Despite Mr. Everdell's concerns about ongoing confusion, the judge decides to simply refer the jury back to the original charge, which Ms. Moe argues clearly specifies a New York statute.
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell). The discussion focuses on formulating a response to a jury's question regarding 'Count Four', specifically concerning the required evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight to secure a conviction. The judge finds the jury's question ambiguous and directs them to the full jury instructions, while the counsel argues for a more specific clarification.
DOJ-OGR-00014704.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger. They are discussing the legal standard required for a jury to find a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane' to New Mexico. The central issue is whether the flight must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' related to illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014700.jpg
This is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a debate between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding how to answer a jury note concerning 'Count Four' and a 'second element' related to specific flights or trips. The Judge leans toward following the government's suggestion to refer the jury back to the original instructions rather than providing new specifics.
DOJ-OGR-00014699.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe argue before the judge regarding a question posed by the jury about 'Count Four,' specifically whether a return flight from New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane' constitutes aiding in illegal sexual activity if the initial flight to New Mexico did not. The defense argues the return flight cannot be the sole basis for conviction, while the prosecution argues intent can be inferred.
DOJ-OGR-00014697.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a note from the jury. The jury is asking if a defendant can be found guilty solely for aiding and abetting a return flight from New Mexico, considered separately from the initial flight to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the answer should be 'no' based on the court's instructions that the travel must have a 'significant or motivating purpose'.
DOJ-OGR-00014696.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge and various counsel. The parties address two notes from the jury: one stating a desire to end deliberations at 5 p.m., and another, marked as Court Exhibit 14, for which counsel proposes a response directing the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00014694.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and counsel while a jury is deliberating. The court reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of David Rodgers and then discusses the potential of extending deliberations into the next day. Counsel Ms. Sternheim advises that the jury should be allowed to set its own schedule without pressure from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00014693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, likely relating to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details a discussion regarding courthouse COVID-19 mask mandates (N95/KN95) and the handling of jury notes during deliberations. Specifically, the jury requested a transcript for 'Parkinson' (Court Exhibit 13) and had previously received supplies and a transcript for 'Matt'.
DOJ-OGR-00014692.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion regarding the legal definition of the word "entice" and a procedural matter of marking a note as a court exhibit. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises a concern that Ms. Maxwell was provided an N95 mask but restricted to wearing it only in the courtroom, to which the Judge clarifies the rule applies to the whole courthouse.
DOJ-OGR-00014691.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a discussion between the Judge (The Court), Defense (Mr. Everdell), and Prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding a response to a jury note during deliberations. The court is preparing to send the jury a transcript of testimony from a witness named 'Matt' and is clarifying jury instructions regarding the definition of 'enticement' found on pages 21 and 33 of the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00014690.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of the word 'entice,' citing cases such as Almonte, Dupigny, and Broxmeyer. Mr. Everdell notes a technical difficulty with internet access during the proceeding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
Admission of evidence
Mr. Everdell moves for the admission of Defendant's Trial Exhibit B.
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.
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.
Redactions in documents
Mr. Everdell agreed with the Court's assessment regarding the permissibility of naming individuals not granted anonymity.
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.
Acknowledgement of court's instructions.
Mr. Everdell confirms to the Court that the instructions are 'Totally clear' and states that the government has been provided with copies of the '3500 material'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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".
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.
2007 helicopter purchase and related financial transactions
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. McHugh about a series of financial transactions in June 2007 involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Air Ghislaine, and Sikorsky for the purchase of a helicopter.
Calling next witness
Everdell calls Raghu Sud to the stand.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity