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-00019148.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 803 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." Following her testimony and with no objection from another attorney, Mr. Everdell, the court admits this exhibit and others into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019143.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach and Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge regarding the redaction and docketing of a letter and an 'Exhibit A'. The proceedings appear to be paused briefly while waiting for missing jurors to arrive.
DOJ-OGR-00019128.jpg
This document is page 4 of 49 from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Attorneys Everdell and Menninger discuss procedural logistics with the Court, including the distribution of exhibits to jurors and the upcoming testimony of witness Annie Farmer, who is noted as testifying openly rather than anonymously. Ms. Comey, representing the government, offers no objection to the handling of juror exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00019127.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of his intent to introduce Federal Express invoices as evidence through the next witness, Tracy Chapell. He requests to submit the documents under a temporary seal to allow time for redactions, proposing to have a public version ready by the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00019126.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel without the jury present. The attorneys address several procedural matters, including agreements to release a witness named Carolyn from recall, to permit Kimberly Meder to be present in the courtroom, and to allow the defense time to review a redacted video of a Palm Beach residence before its formal submission as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019124.jpg
This document is the final page (Index of Examination) of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers, along with the attorneys conducting the examinations (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Comey, Pagliuca, Moe, Everdell). It also logs the receipt of Government Exhibits 823, 823-R, 105, 1, 2, 3, 662, and 662-R.
DOJ-OGR-00019119.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, Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell, and Prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding trial scheduling, specifically when the government's case will conclude and when the defense will begin presenting their case. The prosecution requests Rule 26.2 disclosures at the conclusion of their case.
DOJ-OGR-00019118.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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a delay in starting the defense's case because the government shortened their case unexpectedly, causing witness scheduling issues. The Court agrees to delay the defense case start until the following Thursday and discusses scheduling a charging conference for Friday or the evening of the 16th.
DOJ-OGR-00019117.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a scheduling discussion between the judge, the government's attorney (Ms. Moe), and the defense attorney (Mr. Everdell). The attorneys provide updates on when their respective cases will proceed, and the judge proposes potential dates, specifically the 16th or 18th of the month, for the charge conference. The conversation aims to establish a clear timeline for the remainder of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019116.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Mr. Rodgers (likely Epstein's pilot David Rodgers), is being questioned by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding dates he met specific individuals, including a 'Jane' in November 1996 and another individual in September 2003, referencing his flight logbook for verification. The witness confirms he does not recall meeting anyone else with the same first name on Epstein's planes, after which he is excused and the court breaks for the evening.
DOJ-OGR-00019112.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' 30-year employment with Mr. Epstein, establishing that Rodgers never witnessed any behavior from Ghislaine that suggested she was helping Epstein abuse underage girls. Rodgers also confirms he was comfortable with his own teenage daughter spending time with Ghislaine.
DOJ-OGR-00019096.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Rodgers, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on confirming the location of Jeffrey Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach and establishing that Epstein temporarily relocated to a nearby rental property during a period of renovation.
DOJ-OGR-00019094.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sealed documents labeled LV4 and LV5. The attorney instructs the witness to use the pseudonym 'Kate' for a name appearing on document LV4 and asks the witness if they recall meeting that person on any flights.
DOJ-OGR-00019093.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning confirms that an individual named Emmy was a passenger on one of Epstein's planes. The transcript also establishes that, according to the witness's recollection and the flight logs, there is no record of a person named Annie Farmer ever flying on Epstein's planes.
DOJ-OGR-00019091.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony focuses first on a photograph of Eva Dubin and whether she appeared pregnant, then shifts to examining Government Exhibit 662 (flight logs). Specifically, the questioning confirms a flight (number 878) that took place on August 18, 1996, traveling from Teterboro to Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00019068.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a criminal court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a cross-examination by Mr. Everdell, likely of Mr. Rodgers, concerning evidence labeled LV3A and LV3B, and photos depicting an unnamed individual. The Court and jury are involved in the process of reviewing this evidence, with specific instructions given regarding its handling and the non-disclosure of a person's name.
DOJ-OGR-00019062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning establishes that 'Jane' is an alias for a woman whose real name the witness knows. The key point of the testimony is the witness's recollection of seeing this woman, 'Jane', on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00017027.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dialogue between the Judge (The Court) and attorneys Menninger, Rohrbach, and Everdell regarding the finalization of evidence exhibits (specifically a flash drive and physical exhibits) to be sent to the jury. The page concludes with the court announcing a recess to await the jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00017026.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. They discuss logistical matters for the trial, including the preparation of redacted transcripts for jury read-backs and the decision to provide the jury with digital exhibits on a flash drive instead of physical copies. The judge also coordinates with a Ms. Williams to finalize the exhibit list for both parties.
DOJ-OGR-00017023.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the prosecution and defense. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically the confirmation that trial exhibits have been made public through the U.S. Attorney's Office and the logistics of redacting sensitive information from closing argument slides in a timely manner. Counsel clarifies which version of a specific exhibit, AF-1R, is the public version.
DOJ-OGR-00017021.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. The Court, along with counsel Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach, finalizes a minor textual edit and discusses redactions. The judge thanks the court staff and all parties for their willingness to work on a Saturday before adjourning the proceedings until 8:30 a.m. on Monday, December 20, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim. The conversation centers on logistical planning for the end of a trial, including the timing of closing arguments, the significant length of the jury charge (about 80 pages), and the procedures for handling jury exhibits, noting changes from previous COVID protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00017014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The discussion centers on finalizing the 'verdict sheet,' specifically correcting a typographical error where a 'T' appeared instead of a checkmark. The Judge outlines a schedule for receiving a letter from the government regarding open issues and sending out final redline and clean versions of the documents.
DOJ-OGR-00017013.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys Everdell and Rohrbach debating and agreeing upon the specific phrasing for legal charges with the Judge, specifically regarding 'sex trafficking' and 'conspiracy' counts involving individuals under the age of 18 and a specific individual named Carolyn.
DOJ-OGR-00017012.jpg
This document is page 86 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the specific wording of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six. They agree to replace the term 'minor' with 'individuals under the age of 17' and specify '(Jane only)' for certain counts.
TECS Reports
Confirmation that Aznaran ran three traveler reports in the TECS system for Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibits 234 and 245
Discussion regarding photos of Epstein's desk and bookcase.
Juror Exhibits
Request to put folders with exhibits under jurors' chairs.
Trial Logistics
Discussion regarding the handling of paper evidence binders and maintaining witness anonymity during cross-examination.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding the admissibility of property ownership records to impeach witness testimony.
Calling next witness
Everdell calls Raghu Sud to the stand.
Objection to scope of questioning
Argument regarding the relevance of Maxwell's father's death and her housing history.
Jury Instruction Dispute
Discussion regarding how to answer a jury question about conspiracy in Counts One and Three.
Exhibit Identification
Inquiry about trial mark for the 1996 London home sale agreement.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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').
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').
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 Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
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.
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 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.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding whether photographs accurately depict the location during the time of the conspiracy.
Jury Instructions
Oral argument regarding the clarity of jury instructions concerning jurisdiction and age of consent.
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".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity