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-00013961.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of witness Mr. Sud. Sud confirms he began booking travel for Jeffrey Epstein's office in 1999 and that the records being reviewed (Exhibit RS-1) cover the period from 1999 through 2006. Sud is subsequently excused from the stand, and the defense is invited to call its next witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013960.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the testimony of a witness named Sud, questioned by Mr. Everdell regarding the interpretation of columns in financial records (invoices) related to Epstein between January 1999 and December 2006. The witness confirms that the records list passenger names and invoice amounts.
DOJ-OGR-00013958.jpg
This court transcript dated August 10, 2022, captures a moment in a trial where defense attorney Mr. Everdell introduces 'Defendant's Exhibit RS-1'. He requests it be temporarily sealed to protect third-party personal information, a request to which the opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, does not object. The Court grants the request, admitting the exhibit under seal and allowing it to be presented to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Sud, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Sud testifies that he lives in East Windsor, New Jersey, and is the Vice President of Shoppers Travel, a full-service travel agency he has worked for since its founding in 1988.
DOJ-OGR-00013951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of Ms. Espinosa's testimony, confirming she worked at Jeffrey Epstein's Madison Avenue office but never at his homes or Palm Beach property. Following her dismissal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Mr. Raghu Sud, who is sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00013950.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Espinosa. During questioning, Ms. Espinosa states that in the six years she worked for Ghislaine, she never saw Ghislaine or Jeffrey Epstein engage in any inappropriate activity with underage girls. The page concludes with counsel Ms. Pomerantz beginning her cross-examination of the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013947.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The questioning attorney attempts to establish the date of a prior videoconference interview between Espinosa and prosecutors. As the witness cannot recall the specific date, the attorney, Mr. Everdell, with the court's permission, directs her to a document to refresh her memory.
DOJ-OGR-00013945.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 details a short recess where the jury and witness, Ms. Espinosa, leave the courtroom. Upon returning, the Court instructs defense attorney Mr. Everdell to continue his direct examination of Ms. Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00013944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness testifies about the timeline of a relationship between Ghislaine and Ted Waitt, estimating it began around 2001. The proceedings are then paused for a 15-minute break at the request of an attorney, Mr. Everdell, after he conferred with the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00013940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa identifies Sarah Kellen in a photograph (Government's Exhibit 327) and testifies that Kellen arrived towards the end of Espinosa's employment, specifically between 2000 and 2002. Espinosa states she did not know Kellen's specific job title but observed that Kellen accompanied Jeffrey Epstein to his properties and was essentially always where he was.
DOJ-OGR-00013939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness identifies Sarah Kellen as having occupied an office previously used by Ghislaine. The transcript also captures a procedural discussion between the attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Pomerantz) and the judge regarding the presentation of Government's Exhibit 327 to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013931.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of Ms. Espinosa by Mr. Everdell, where she describes her role managing a calendar for approximately a dozen apartments owned by Jeffrey Epstein at 301 East 66th Street. She notes that these apartments were used to house employees, family, friends, and guests.
DOJ-OGR-00013929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The witness is questioned about an envelope (exhibit CE3) and a photograph (exhibit CE4). The witness identifies the person in the photograph as 'Jane' and is about to describe an inscription on it when an attorney, Mr. Everdell, interjects.
DOJ-OGR-00013928.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is questioning a witness, Ms. Espinosa, about an exhibit labeled CE3. Ms. Espinosa identifies CE3 as a manilla envelope sent by a person named Jane to a Ms. Cimberly, care of Epstein & Co. at 457 Madison Avenue, but notes that the date on the postage is illegible.
DOJ-OGR-00013927.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a direct examination of a witness named Espinosa regarding headshots and an envelope. It also records a motion by defense counsel Mr. Everdell to admit exhibits CE3 through CE8 temporarily under seal to protect witness privacy, which the Court granted, allowing a witness to testify under pseudonym.
DOJ-OGR-00013926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Espinosa, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell introduces several exhibits (CE3-CE8) for identification, which Ms. Espinosa confirms she recognizes as headshots of three cast members and a group cast photo.
DOJ-OGR-00013923.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. Espinosa testifies that an individual named Jane was treated as 'extra special' in their office because Jane's mother had claimed Jane was 'Jeffrey's goddaughter'. The questioning also touches upon Jane's siblings and the contact between Jane's mother and someone named Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013921.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on frequent phone calls received at the office from 'Jane's mother,' who was persistently asking to speak with Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning is interrupted by an objection from Ms. Pomerantz regarding hearsay, prompting the judge to request a proffer.
DOJ-OGR-00013920.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. The questioning focuses on a person referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane,' whom Espinosa recalls seeing in 'the office' approximately five times, starting when Jane appeared to be about 18 years old. Espinosa notes that Jane was accompanied by her mother during these visits.
DOJ-OGR-00013917.jpg
This court transcript details the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. She testifies about her first trip to Europe three years prior, during which she stayed at a residence after contacting Ghislaine for permission. The questioning then pivots to her knowledge, from her "work in the office," of whether Epstein made charitable donations, which she confirms he did.
DOJ-OGR-00013899.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Espinosa. She testifies that during her six years of employment with Jeffrey Epstein's company, her primary workplace was an office at 457 Madison in Manhattan. She also states that she worked at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence for a total of about one to two weeks, but never worked at Jeffrey Epstein's residence in Manhattan.
DOJ-OGR-00013891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of a trial session where the defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, calls his first witness, Cimberly Espinosa. The witness is sworn in, identifies herself for the record, and prepares to undergo direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and clarifies that Mr. Everdell will be calling the first witness. The court then prepares to bring in the jury to proceed with the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013887.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The discussion covers procedural issues such as making photocopies, a request for a brief recess, and a request to use a screen for a potential witness, Dr. Loftus. The court resolves the copying issue and prepares to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding exhibits CE3 through CE8 (headshots of cast members).
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.
Jury Instruction 44
Mr. Everdell reads a proposed jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses with prior felony convictions.
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.
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".
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity