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-00008348.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of a court proceeding dated December 10, 2021, discussing jury instructions related to New Mexico law concerning illegal sexual activity. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach deliberate on how to present evidence and frame the charges for the jury, with the Court indicating it will refine the instructions for clarity. The discussion highlights the legal interpretation of 'force or coercion' in the context of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00008347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021, detailing a legal discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation centers on the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning sexual conduct in New Mexico to a federal conspiracy charge under the Mann Act, particularly in relation to New York's age of consent laws. The judge acknowledges the complexity and indicates the need for a legally correct jury charge.
DOJ-OGR-00008344.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on December 10, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge regarding jury instructions for an enticement charge. The core issue is whether the legality of sexual activity under New Mexico law is relevant or potentially prejudicial for a charge based on violating New York law, with the judge expressing concern about confusing the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008343.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 10, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony regarding Accuser 2 and Accuser 3 might lead the jury to convict Maxwell on an improper basis because their allegations do not relate to New York law violations. The Court acknowledges the need to clarify to the jury that while evidence may be relevant to enticement charges, sexual activity in New Mexico cannot be considered as the illegal conduct charged in the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008260.jpg
This is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 8, 2021. Ms. Comey clarifies procedural questions with the Court regarding the presence of supervisors in the witness room. Mr. Everdell (Defense) raises an issue regarding a 'Touhy request' submitted several weeks prior, seeking a witness from Customs and Border Protection to authenticate border crossing records, noting there are complications but hoping for a resolution or stipulation.
DOJ-OGR-00021036.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the explanatory commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'repeat and dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, when offered a chance to respond, declines to make a verbal argument and instead rests on her previously submitted written briefing.
DOJ-OGR-00021032.jpg
This court transcript excerpt discusses the roles and relationships of individuals involved in a scheme, specifically focusing on the defendant's leadership over Sarah Kellen and their shared association with Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. It highlights evidence from flight records showing the defendant and Sarah Kellen traveling on Epstein's private jet, indicating an overlap in their involvement as close associates in an ongoing scheme. The discussion also touches upon legal arguments regarding the supervision of criminal participants.
DOJ-OGR-00021029.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 28, 2023, likely from the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). Defense counsel (Mr. Everdell) argues that evidence of money moving to buy a helicopter does not prove the defendant's continued criminal involvement, comparing it to pilot Larry Visoski holding assets for Epstein without being a co-conspirator. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) counters that the financial evidence was introduced to refute the claim that the defendant had 'moved on' from her association with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020907.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (dated Feb 28, 2023, Case 22-1426) involving a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe before the Judge. The discussion centers on the credibility of a male witness/victim who gave an interview to a journalist named Lucia from 'The Independent' about sexual abuse. Everdell argues the witness is inconsistent regarding whether he understood that speaking to the press would make his identity and abuse public.
DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.
DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg
This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.
DOJ-OGR-00020862.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Page 3153) involving a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion centers on a jury note and whether a supplemental instruction is needed to clarify that conduct occurring solely in New Mexico cannot be the basis for a violation of New York law (specifically regarding Count Four). The Judge rejects the defense's proposed instruction as incorrect, noting that the defense did not previously seek to exclude testimony or request a limiting instruction regarding the New Mexico evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020861.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, capturing a conversation between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the judge. Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury, arguing that it shows they are confused about the instructions for Count Four. Specifically, the jury is questioning whether they can convict the defendant, M. Maxwell, based solely on events that occurred in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00020860.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number 22-1426 and attorney Mr. Everdell). The Judge is explaining a decision to extend jury deliberations by one hour each day due to an 'astronomical spike' in COVID-19 (Omicron variant) cases in New York City, aiming to complete the trial before jurors or participants are forced to quarantine. Mr. Everdell acknowledges the ruling and declines to argue the point at that moment.
DOJ-OGR-00020858.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial appeal, given the case number and content) detailing a dispute over jury instructions. The Court rejects a proposed defense instruction regarding 'Count Two' and discusses the legal relevance of sexual activity involving 'Jane' in New Mexico versus New York. The Judge addresses attorney Mr. Everdell directly regarding these legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00020847.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed as part of an appeal in 2023) documenting a dispute between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding jury instructions. The issue concerns a jury question about 'Count Four' and potential confusion between New York and New Mexico laws. The Judge shuts down the debate and decides to refer the jury back to the original charge.
DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.
DOJ-OGR-00020842.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) filed on 02/28/2023. It features a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger before a Judge regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of 'transportation' for illegal sexual activity. The discussion specifically focuses on a flight to New Mexico involving a victim referred to as 'Jane' and whether the intent of that specific travel leg was for sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00020841.jpg
This court transcript excerpt captures a legal discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court regarding a jury's question on 'aiding and abetting'. The conversation centers on the legal requirements for finding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, guilty in relation to arranging travel to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury instruction requires the travel to have a 'significant or motivating purpose' across state lines, rather than focusing solely on who arranged the transportation.
DOJ-OGR-00020838.jpg
This court transcript page, dated February 28, 2023, documents a discussion between a judge and attorneys about how to properly respond to a jury's question. The attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe, present conflicting views on which specific jury instructions are relevant to the jury's query concerning 'Count Four'. The judge expresses difficulty in understanding the jury's exact question and considers following the government's suggestion.
DOJ-OGR-00020837.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated February 28, 2023 (filing date). Attorneys Mr. Everdell (Defense) and Ms. Moe (Prosecution) are arguing over how to answer a jury question regarding 'Count Four' and 'Jane.' The debate centers on whether a 'return flight' from New Mexico can serve as the basis for a conviction if the initial flight's intent for illegal sexual activity is in question.
DOJ-OGR-00020835.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) dated February 28, 2023. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is discussing a note from the jury with the Judge, arguing that the jurors are distinguishing between a flight *to* New Mexico and a flight *from* New Mexico regarding 'illicit sexual activity.' Everdell states there is no record of a flight from New Mexico and argues about the necessary 'significant or motivating purpose' of the travel required for a guilty verdict.
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.
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.
Sentencing Hearing / Fine Determination
Judge asks defense counsel to confirm their assertion regarding inability to pay fine; Judge overrules objection.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Oral argument regarding which sentencing guidelines book applies (2003 vs 2004) and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Defense Witness Anonymity
Mr. Everdell informs the court that defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under protection (pseudonyms).
Jury Instructions regarding Jane's testimony
Discussion about limiting instructions for the jury regarding age of consent in New Mexico and Mann Act charges.
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