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-00016924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22. It records the end of a day's proceedings where the defense (Ms. Sternheim) renews a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. The Judge coordinates scheduling for a charging conference with staff member Ms. Williams and adjourns the court until December 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016917.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. It details the admission of several defense exhibits (DH1-DH4, J2) and a stipulation read by attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the HM Land Registry in the UK. The stipulation confirms the registry's authority and authenticates documents retrieved in 2021 regarding two London properties: 69 Stanhope Mews East and 44 Kinnerton Street.
DOJ-OGR-00016916.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing discussions and stipulations regarding the admission of various exhibits (A-1, A-2, DH1, DH2, DH3, J2, DH4) during a legal proceeding. Attorneys MS. COMEY and MR. EVERDELL, along with THE COURT, discuss the admissibility of Palm Beach County school records pertaining to individuals named Virginia Robertson and Jane, and the potential testimony of witness Dominique Hyppolite. The government also requested that Exhibit J2 be accepted under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00016913.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Ms. Comey agree to stipulations regarding the admission of redacted Government Exhibits 52-K, 52-J, and 52-L under seal. Additionally, the parties stipulate that the FBI seized Annie Farmer's boots on June 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016912.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell) about the day's trial schedule. The judge discusses the need to potentially keep the jury until 5:30 or 6:00 PM and shows consideration for jurors' potential childcare responsibilities. After the scheduling is discussed, the jury is brought in, and the judge allows Mr. Everdell to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016910.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a critical moment where the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell ('Ms. Maxwell'), formally confirms to the Court that she has decided not to testify in her trial, following consultation with her attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The proceedings include a brief recess, after which attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell confirm their readiness to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Pagliuca, Comey, Everdell, Menninger) about witness scheduling. The discussion revolves around the absence of a scheduled witness, Ms. Dubin, a proposal to call another witness, Agent Young, and difficulties in contacting other individuals in Colorado. The judge grants the lawyers a short break to organize their witnesses before resuming the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016779.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing the defense's attempt to impeach an investigation. It references testimony from witnesses Stephen Flatley, who extracted files from devices, and Kimberly Meder, who reviewed photographs. The Court refers to a prior November 1st ruling that precludes certain investigative steps as direct evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016778.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal debate over the execution of a search at a New York residence. Attorneys argue about the specific roles of Special Agent Maguire and Agent Young, particularly concerning who was the overall search leader and who was responsible for extracting files from electronic devices. The judge actively questions the attorneys to clarify these disputed facts.
DOJ-OGR-00016777.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Menninger) counsel. The core issue is whether the defense can introduce evidence related to broader investigative steps, such as a 2019 search, that were not part of the evidence presented to the jury. The prosecution argues this would be confusing and violate a court order, while the defense attempts to justify its relevance.
DOJ-OGR-00016776.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues about the vast amount of data ('millions of files') seized from Mr. Epstein's residence in 2019, contrasting it with the limited evidence presented by the government. A discussion ensues about the witness who testified on this matter, with another attorney, Ms. Comey, correcting Mr. Everdell that the witness was Kimberly Meder, not Mr. Flatley.
DOJ-OGR-00016772.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. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to revisit a ruling to allow the defense to call FBI case agents as witnesses to question their investigative thoroughness, arguing that 'Jane's testimony' made this a live issue. The Court pushes back, citing the Second Circuit case 'Saldarriaga' and maintaining that the government's investigative techniques do not prove the defendant's innocence.
DOJ-OGR-00016771.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument by Mr. Rohrbach to the court. He refutes a point made by opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, regarding the defense's ability to challenge an investigation's thoroughness. Mr. Rohrbach argues that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses like 'Jane' about events, they are prohibited from calling a case agent during their direct case simply to highlight investigative steps that were not taken, referencing the Watson and Brady cases as precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00016768.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell debating the relevance of questioning a case agent about the timeline of allegations investigated. Ms. Comey argues that the investigation was broader than the specific charges and that the defense can argue the lack of evidence (DNA, phone records) without putting the agent on the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00016767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that the defense should be allowed to highlight that the allegations are 25 years old. He asserts this explains the absence of corroborating evidence, such as geo-location data, because records are destroyed over such a long period.
DOJ-OGR-00016766.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge warns Mr. Everdell that his intended line of questioning for a witness—focusing on what the government didn't do—would violate a prior court order. Mr. Everdell defends his approach as an attempt to elicit evidence about the absence of evidence, but the judge reiterates that the jury's role is to evaluate the evidence the government did present.
DOJ-OGR-00016763.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Judge that he should be allowed to question an agent to explain the absence of modern evidence (like geo-location and phone records) due to the age of the allegations. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach questions the necessity of this, noting that a custodian has already testified regarding recordkeeping.
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016761.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues to the Court that the lack of corroborating documentary evidence, specifically phone records and emails, is due to the age of the allegations (dating back to the 1990s) when such technology was not widely used. The discussion focuses on formulating questions to an agent regarding this absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016760.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell. The conversation covers the rules for questioning an adverse witness and the scope of upcoming testimony from Special Agent Young concerning prior statements made by an individual named Jane. Mr. Everdell also indicates his intent to question the absence of modern evidence, such as emails from the 1990s, to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016759.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell). The conversation centers on the prior testimony of a witness named Jane, specifically her memory of a trip to New York around 1997 and whether that memory was influenced by her attorney, Mr. Rossmiller. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, also informs the court of their intent to call Special Agent Amanda Young as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016745.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and attorneys about a witness named Kelly. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, introduces a witness from the 'Nags Head Pub' in the U.K., while the opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, objects, stating they have received no prior information and cannot agree to a stipulation. The judge expresses frustration at hearing about this subpoenaed witness for the first time during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016744.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument about a witness the defense has been unable to contact. The defense attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, detail their efforts, including issuing a subpoena and providing contact information. Opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, argues that the defense is raising this issue improperly late in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00016743.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the late introduction of a deposition transcript from 2019, the judge's firm stance against delaying the trial, and a potential issue with the marshal's ability to produce a subpoenaed witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural debate between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger. The discussion centers on the defense's desire to introduce a new witness, the relevance of ownership documents, a stipulation regarding testimony from a Ms. Maxwell, and the recent discovery of a 2019 deposition of Ms. Menninger's client. The transcript highlights the strategic arguments over evidence and witness presentation during a trial.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
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.
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.
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.
Witness Credibility
Argument regarding the contradictions in the subject's statements about public exposure.
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.
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