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 |
EFTA00030386.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's initial custody conditions from July 6 to July 13, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell ahead of deadlines set by Judge Nathan and her arraignment, with BOP officials noting she is receiving more access than typical inmates. The chain concludes with the prosecution seeking confirmation that Maxwell is housed in a single cell separated from other inmates for security reasons to include in a public filing.
EFTA00024788.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-10, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and MDC staff regarding the scheduling of legal calls for Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest. The correspondence highlights urgent requests for access due to court deadlines set by Judge Nathan, the establishment of a standing 10 AM daily call schedule leading up to her arraignment on July 14, and some friction regarding whether defense counsel was following proper protocols for requesting calls.
EFTA00024437.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell immediately following her arrest on July 6, 2020. The correspondence coordinates urgent legal calls for Maxwell to meet a court deadline set by Judge Nathan and establishes a schedule for daily standing calls with her defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, leading up to her arraignment on July 14, 2020. There is some friction regarding whether defense counsel followed proper protocols for requesting calls, with prison officials defending their responsiveness.
EFTA00015957.pdf
This document is an email chain between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Bureau of Prisons/MDC officials regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest in July 2020. Key topics include scheduling urgent legal calls for her defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) ahead of deadlines and her arraignment, establishing a standing 10:00 AM call schedule, and confirming her housing conditions (solitary cell and separate exercise) for court filings. BOP officials note that Maxwell was receiving significantly more legal access (2-hour afternoon calls plus morning calls) than typical inmates.
EFTA00015951.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 6-11, 2020, between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and prison officials (MDC) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after her arrest. The emails coordinate urgent legal calls between Maxwell and her defense counsel (specifically Mr. Everdell) ahead of court deadlines and her arraignment scheduled for July 14, 2020. There is discussion regarding a 'standing legal call' at 10:00 AM and adherence to EDNY/SDNY protocols for scheduling inmate calls.
DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing proceedings related to evidence. The court admits 'Defendant's Trial Exhibit B' based on a prior stipulation regarding items found at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home in 2005. Following this, the government, represented by Ms. Comey, moves to enter a large number of redacted exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018357.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion in open court regarding the sealing and redaction of defense exhibits, specifically J15 and a proposed J15R. The core issue is the protection of identifying information related to 'Jane,' who was the subject of a recent cross-examination. Various parties, including Ms. Moe, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Menninger, debate the necessity and process of sealing these exhibits to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00018354.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference where prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach objects to the defense's intention to ask the upcoming witness, 'Kate,' to identify her personal counsel in the courtroom. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that if a witness brings counsel for support, it is relevant and 'fair game' for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018352.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Comey) and the judge. The discussion centers on procedural matters, specifically clarifying which numbered massage room photos are to be admitted as evidence with redactions. Mr. Everdell also informs the court that the defense and the government have reached an agreement on a testimonial stipulation for a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson.
DOJ-OGR-00018351.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and attorneys Rohrbach, Comey, and Everdell. The main topic is the procedure for admitting redacted photos into evidence, with the court ruling that the jury will see unredacted versions while the public sees the redacted copies. Attorney Everdell requests and is granted time to review the redactions before they are formally moved into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018336.jpg
This document is page 235 of a court transcript index from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the examination details (Direct and Cross) for witnesses Juan Patricio Alessi, Gregory Parkinson, and Michael Dawson by attorneys Pagliuca, Comey, and Everdell. It also tracks the receipt of numerous Government Exhibits (numbered between 201 and 721) into the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00018335.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion at the end of a hearing where Defense attorney Mr. Everdell requests a witness list for the upcoming week. Prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees to provide the list to the Defense and the Court by the end of the day on Saturday. The Court then adjourns the proceedings until December 6, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018334.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor (Ms. Comey), and Defense (Mr. Everdell) are discussing the timeline for redacting and releasing photographs and videos to the public. The Judge emphasizes the need to release as much information to the public as possible while protecting the privacy of those testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00018330.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson. Dawson confirms that an individual named Juan Alessi admitted to taking $5,600 from a briefcase to pay for his girlfriend's immigration papers. The transcript concludes with the judge adjourning the session for the night and providing instructions to the jury for the upcoming weekend.
DOJ-OGR-00018325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of Sergeant Dawson by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning concerns Sergeant Dawson's potential participation in an investigation of a burglary at Jeffrey Epstein's residence, to which Dawson responds that he does not recall. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by confusion over the correct binder of documents being used as evidence, which the judge helps to resolve.
DOJ-OGR-00018323.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00018322.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a cross-examination of a witness named Dawson by defense attorney Mr. Everdell. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to a question about a residence, leading Mr. Everdell to request a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement by a prior witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018319.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceedings, the government attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully has several photographs admitted as evidence, and then questions Sergeant Dawson about a search. Sergeant Dawson testifies that he notified the crime scene unit, led by Greg Parkinson, to photograph and process the evidence he seized.
DOJ-OGR-00018318.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of Sergeant Dawson by Ms. Comey, focusing on items, specifically 'message books,' found and seized during a search conducted under a warrant. Sergeant Dawson confirms his and Detective Dix's involvement in locating and seizing these items from a house.
DOJ-OGR-00018313.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Mr. Parkinson, who is excused by the court to catch a flight. Subsequently, the government (represented by Ms. Comey) calls Sergeant Michael Dawson as a witness, who is sworn in and begins his direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018311.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the cross-examination of Mr. Parkinson by attorney Mr. Everdell in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The questioning focuses on a specific photograph of an unidentified woman found during a search of Jeffrey Epstein's house conducted by Parkinson. Everdell establishes that Parkinson did not recall finding, nor did the government present, any other photographs or video evidence of this specific woman from the search.
DOJ-OGR-00018310.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell is cross-examining witness Mr. Parkinson regarding photographic evidence (Government Exhibits 234 and 245) which depict Jeffrey Epstein's desk and bookcase shelves. The exhibits are noted as being 'under seal'.
DOJ-OGR-00018309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson. An attorney questions Parkinson about Government Exhibits 235 and 292, establishing that photographs of a "windy staircase" do not show any pictures on the adjacent wall. The proceedings also involve a discussion among attorneys and the judge about another piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 234, which is confirmed to be sealed.
Jury Instructions
Oral argument regarding the clarity of jury instructions concerning jurisdiction and age of consent.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
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.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Oral argument regarding which sentencing guidelines book applies (2003 vs 2004) and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Sentencing Guidelines / Dangerousness
Argument that background commentary is authoritative and defines 'dangerous' as continuously dangerous to the community, which he argues does not apply to his client.
Sentencing Hearing / Fine Determination
Judge asks defense counsel to confirm their assertion regarding inability to pay fine; Judge overrules objection.
Government's legal argument on supervision
Mr. Everdell begins to address the Sarah Kellen point and challenges the government's interpretation of case law regarding the supervision of another criminal participant.
Inquiry into Juror Bias
Everdell argues for the necessity of asking a juror about the nature of their therapy and abuse history to determine if it aligns with victim testimony, suggesting bias.
Witness Credibility
Argument regarding the contradictions in the subject's statements about public exposure.
Denial of Proposed Questions
The Court denies the request to ask specific questions about therapy and abuse history because the defense did not propose comparable questions during the original voir dire.
Jury Instructions / Evidence Admissibility
Oral argument regarding the admissibility of testimony concerning illegal acts and jurisdiction (NY vs NM).
Witness List Request
Everdell requests a witness list for the next week. Comey agrees to provide it by Saturday end of day.
Jury Instructions regarding Jane's testimony
Discussion about limiting instructions for the jury regarding age of consent in New Mexico and Mann Act charges.
Defense Witness Anonymity
Mr. Everdell informs the court that defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under protection (pseudonyms).
Cross-examination
Procedural discussion regarding a binder of evidence and mask removal, followed by the start of questioning regarding Visoski's employment history.
Clarification of 'minors' in indictment
Argument regarding Count Five, specifically the definition of 'minors' versus specific ages (17 or 18) to avoid ambiguity during the 2001-2004 conspiracy period.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity