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-00017011.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of the verdict sheet and jury instructions. The parties agree to amend the language of Count One (conspiracy to entice) to refer to 'individuals' (plural) rather than 'an individual' under the age of 17.
DOJ-OGR-00017010.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach. They are finalizing jury instructions and correcting a typographical error on the verdict sheet, changing the phrase 'solely be' to 'solely by'.
DOJ-OGR-00017009.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate over jury instructions and closing arguments, specifically regarding an 'empty chair' argument (likely referring to Epstein's absence) and the government's motivations for prosecution. The Judge (The Court) explicitly rules that there will be no argument allowed regarding the government's motivation.
DOJ-OGR-00017006.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017003.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The discussion centers on the precise wording of a jury instruction concerning "uncalled witnesses," with Mr. Everdell proposing a modification and Mr. Rohrbach defending the standard instruction used in the district.
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that there are witnesses the defense considered calling but did not because these individuals would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, as the government could have charged them criminally based on prior testimony. The Court acknowledges that the defense cannot offer immunity like the government can, but views the jury charge under discussion as standard.
DOJ-OGR-00017001.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding jury instruction no. 50 ('uncalled witnesses charge'). Everdell argues that the instruction should not be included because certain defense witnesses refused to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, noting the government's power to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00017000.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, proposes an instruction regarding the credibility of a witness with a prior felony conviction, citing the case 'United States v. Berry' as a model. The opposing counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, requests time to review this new proposal, which the Court grants, suggesting the instruction be added as a standalone item.
DOJ-OGR-00016998.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding 'Instruction 44' concerning the credibility of witnesses who are convicted felons. Mr. Everdell reads a proposed instruction text derived from 'Sand' (likely a legal reference book), which Mr. Rohrbach challenges as not being standard practice in that district.
DOJ-OGR-00016996.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument regarding jury instructions in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that a 'conscious avoidance instruction' is appropriate because the government argues Maxwell either knew or consciously avoided knowing that the purpose of her travel with Jeffrey Epstein and minors was sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00016989.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, a lawyer named Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony for the judge, stating that three witnesses—Carolyn, Jane, and Kate—all testified that they had told Ms. Maxwell their age. He also recounts the testimony of another witness, Mr. Alessi, who said he saw Ms. Roberts and Jane at a house and believed them to be under 18, which is relevant to the issue of the defendant's knowledge of the witnesses' ages.
DOJ-OGR-00016988.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion about a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that this instruction would improperly lead the jury to convict, while the court questions the basis of his argument regarding the defendant's knowledge of the crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00016986.jpg
This court transcript captures an argument from a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, objecting to a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction for his client, Ms. Maxwell. He argues that the instruction is inappropriate because testimony from witnesses Jane, Annie, and Carolyn establishes Ms. Maxwell as an active participant in the alleged sexual crimes, not someone who deliberately ignored them. The attorney cites specific acts like participating in massages and groping to prove direct involvement, thereby negating the basis for a conscious avoidance theory.
DOJ-OGR-00016985.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a legal argument regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'overt acts' and the testimony of a witness named 'Kate.' The defense (Everdell and Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) are present, and the Judge calls for a 10-minute recess following a request by Ms. Sternheim to consult with Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell regarding edits to Jury Instruction No. 36. The discussion focuses on semantic changes, such as replacing 'the defendant' with 'Ms. Maxwell,' and addresses the removal of an individual named 'Kate' from the list of overt acts.
DOJ-OGR-00016983.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court hearing on August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The discussion centers on amending a legal document, specifically a clause alleging that Maxwell, among Epstein's employees, sent gifts to Carolyn between 2001 and 2004. Mr. Everdell argues for the exclusion of Maxwell's name from this clause, citing a lack of evidence and contradictory FedEx records, to which the government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, ultimately agrees.
DOJ-OGR-00016979.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. They are discussing specific edits to jury instructions, focusing on the wording related to a person named Jane being under the age of 17. Mr. Everdell also raises an objection to the jury being allowed to consider another person's (Annie's) testimony as an overt act in a conspiracy charge that violates New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions regarding 'overt acts' involving witnesses named Jane, Annie, and Kate. The government agrees to remove an instruction related to Kate to avoid an improper conviction based solely on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
DOJ-OGR-00016976.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of jury instructions, specifically distinguishing between 'minors' and 'individuals under the age of 18' in relation to sex trafficking and conspiracy counts. The judge also corrects a clerical error in the title of Instruction 36 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five.
DOJ-OGR-00016975.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge ('The Court'), regarding specific wording changes to Jury Instruction No. 34. The prosecution (Rohrbach) successfully argues that the phrase 'an individual under the age of 18' should be changed to 'individuals under the age of 18' to accurately reflect that the conspiracy charge involved multiple minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016974.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about amending the language in jury instruction number 34. The key change involves replacing the general term "minors" with the more precise phrases "individuals under the age of 17" and "an individual under the age of 18" on specific lines of the instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00016972.jpg
This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge to finalize jury instructions. The parties agree to several edits, including replacing the term 'a Minor' with 'an Individual Under the Age of 18' to conform to the statute, and substituting the generic term 'the defendant' with the specific name 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00016971.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, where attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions with the judge. Key points include a request to substitute a 'Miller charge', a modification to specify a count relates 'solely to Carolyn', and a court clerk's observation about the word 'Minor' in the heading of Count Six. The document captures the procedural process of finalizing legal instructions for a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016969.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell. The parties discuss whether to send an indictment back to the jury due to a wording issue concerning a minor. Both the prosecution and defense unexpectedly agree that this is unnecessary, a rare occurrence that the judge remarks upon.
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.
Admissibility of Evidence
Argument regarding Government Exhibits 919, 920, and 53, specifically requesting they not be described as 'schoolgirl outfits' to the jury.
Jury Instructions
Argument regarding the elimination of a jury charge concerning investigative techniques.
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
Exhibit 913 Privacy
Requesting privacy interests for photos on a desk.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
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.
Jury Instructions / Technical Issues
Discussion regarding the definition of 'entice' and citations of case law.
Jury Instructions/Verdict Sheet Language
Discussion regarding the phrasing of Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six, specifically regarding the age of victims and the name 'Jane'.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding whether the witness saw any inappropriate activity during 30 years of employment.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding FedEx invoices and their maintenance in the regular course of business.
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.
Direct Examination regarding search video
Discussion of Government Exhibit 296 showing a property search.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding flight rules, mingling with passengers, and cockpit procedures.
Jury Instructions/Charge Language
Discussion regarding the specific wording of sex trafficking charges and conspiracy counts.
Jury Instructions regarding New Mexico Law
Argument that specific sexual activity was not illegal under New Mexico law because it lacked force or coercion, and the jury instruction should reflect this.
Legal definitions
Verbal exchange regarding case law and definitions for jury instructions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity