Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel parties |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness 1
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gregory Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael Dawson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
colleague
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McHugh
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Professional representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Raghu Sud
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sergeant Dawson
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge (Honor)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00016891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. Mr. Everdell argues against admitting evidence provided by the government, stating it is new information that his client, Ms. Maxwell, was not shown during her deposition. He suggests that any confusion in her testimony about her past addresses in London could be due to the vagueness of questioning and her having lived in many different places.
DOJ-OGR-00016890.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe before a judge. Mr. Everdell seeks to admit land registry records for the Kinnerton Street and Stanhope Mews residences to challenge a witness's testimony about Ms. Maxwell's whereabouts in 1992-1993. In exchange for admitting these records, he suggests the prosecution should be allowed to admit deposition testimony from Ms. Maxwell on the same subject.
DOJ-OGR-00016885.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is addressing the Court regarding the timeline of the defendant's residence at a property on Kinnerton Street in London. Everdell argues that despite a deposition statement where the defendant claimed to be there in 1992 or 1993, she did not own or reside at the property at that time, noting that another couple lived there prior to her purchase.
DOJ-OGR-00016884.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between counsel and the judge regarding the need to establish a person's residency at 44 Kinnerton. Counsel mentions a potential new witness, Mr. Moran, and the judge rules that property ownership documents are admissible as evidence to argue the inference of residency.
DOJ-OGR-00016883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a dispute between the defense (Mr. Everdell) and prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding the late disclosure of a witness. The defense introduces Kevin Moran, the owner of the Nags Head Pub located across the street from Ms. Maxwell's residence at 44 Kinnerton Street, as a witness regarding the timing of her residence there. The prosecution objects, citing a lack of prior notice and missing '26.2 material' (witness statements).
DOJ-OGR-00016882.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely Ghislaine Maxwell's trial). Attorney Mr. Everdell is explaining to the Court why a potential witness was not disclosed earlier, stating they were still verifying the witness's utility. They discuss '26.2 material' (Jencks Act material) and reference a conversation from 'yesterday' (December 16th) regarding the trial schedule, aiming for closing arguments on the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016881.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The text details a procedural argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Mr. Everdell) regarding the late disclosure of defense witnesses. Specifically, there is confusion distinguishing between a plainclothes police officer from the UK seeking anonymity and another 'short witness' the defense planned to call on Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00016880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00016215.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a day's proceedings, where the judge adjourns the court until 8:45 a.m. on November 30, 2021. The judge expresses frustration with numerous 'sidebars' during the day's opening statements and instructs the attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, to meet before the next session to resolve issues in advance.
DOJ-OGR-00016214.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. They are discussing the logistical procedures for handling paper binders and folders for jurors and witnesses during a trial. The primary concern is to maintain the court-ordered anonymity of witnesses, ensuring their names are known to the jury but not published to the public in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00016212.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between Mr. Everdell and the Court. They are determining how to handle an exhibit that contains the full names of real people, agreeing to fully redact the names and seal the exhibit from public view. The Court specifies that the government will see a paper copy, while the witness, Ms. Williams, and the Court itself will view an electronic version.
DOJ-OGR-00016203.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Visoski. The prosecutor, Ms. Comey, presents two government exhibits, which Visoski identifies as fair and accurate photos of the exterior of Mr. Epstein's brownstone at 9 East 71st Street in New York. With no objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016198.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, a witness named Visoski, under questioning by government attorney Ms. Comey, identifies a photo of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence and provides a detailed description of the home's interior layout. During the testimony, "Government Exhibit 212" is admitted into evidence by the court without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00016197.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Visoski by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Visoski identifies Government Exhibit 202 as a photograph of the garage and exterior of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence. Visoski also mentions having previously performed audio/video work at the home.
DOJ-OGR-00016184.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. In the excerpt, the judge confirms with Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell that there are no preliminary issues to address before the jury enters. The court then prepares to bring in the jury for Ms. Comey's witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016183.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge discussing procedural matters, including jury instructions for binders and the display of exhibits. The Judge also sets the upcoming trial schedule for the weeks of Christmas and New Year's, establishing daily start times (9:30 AM) and counsel meetings (8:45 AM).
DOJ-OGR-00016182.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and attorneys (Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim) while the jury is not present. The main topic is the logistical handling of binders containing sealed exhibits for the jury, with the parties agreeing to place them under the jurors' chairs before testimony begins.
DOJ-OGR-00016117.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion regarding the handling of physical evidence binders and paper copies of exhibits. Prosecutor Ms. Moe requests that the government be allowed to review binders prepared by defense attorney Mr. Everdell before they are presented to the jury or witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00016116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The judge outlines concerns and procedures for displaying electronic evidence to a witness who is testifying under a pseudonym, emphasizing the need to prevent accidental identification and ensure the government can see exactly what is being presented. The judge agrees to the electronic method on the condition that paper backups are available and the record is clear, which Mr. Everdell accepts.
DOJ-OGR-00016115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the court and lawyers Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on courtroom logistics, such as arranging lawyers in a 'backup team' for social distancing, and the mechanics of presenting evidence, including physical binders for witnesses and folders for jurors, alongside a request to use electronic evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (related to Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing or fining of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of specific assets in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), specifically citing a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge notes that despite Maxwell's claim of inability to pay, she had significant assets, including $3.8 million reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00021597.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion about a bequest from an estate undergoing bankruptcy. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the Court that this bequest, while disclosed on a financial affidavit, is a 'tenuous asset' that should not be considered for fines because the estate has other claims and the bequest will likely be contested. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, is present but declines to comment further on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021596.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, discussing factual objections in a conspiracy case. The court affirms that Melissa, Virginia, and Carolyn were victims, detailing a recruitment chain, and credits Carolyn's testimony about her age. The discussion then shifts to the defendant's finances, specifically an objection to including a $10 million bequest from Epstein when determining her ability to pay a fine.
DOJ-OGR-00021595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, for Case 22-1426. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, where the court confirms an offense level increase to 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00021580.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) detailing an argument by defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding sentencing guidelines. Everdell argues that background commentary from the Sentencing Commission should be considered authoritative, specifically arguing that his client does not fit the definition of a 'dangerous sex offender' because they have not re-offended in over 18 years. Prosecutor Ms. Moe declines to respond verbally, resting on the government's written briefing.
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