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-00017011.jpg
This document is page 85 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of the verdict sheet and jury instructions. The parties agree to amend the language of Count One (conspiracy to entice) to refer to 'individuals' (plural) rather than 'an individual' under the age of 17.
DOJ-OGR-00017010.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach. They are finalizing jury instructions and correcting a typographical error on the verdict sheet, changing the phrase 'solely be' to 'solely by'.
DOJ-OGR-00017009.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. The text captures a legal debate over jury instructions and closing arguments, specifically regarding an 'empty chair' argument (likely referring to Epstein's absence) and the government's motivations for prosecution. The Judge (The Court) explicitly rules that there will be no argument allowed regarding the government's motivation.
DOJ-OGR-00017006.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. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding jury instructions concerning 'investigative techniques.' Everdell argues the charge should be removed as the defense did not elicit evidence on the topic, while Rohrbach argues it is a correct statement of law relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017003.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The discussion centers on the precise wording of a jury instruction concerning "uncalled witnesses," with Mr. Everdell proposing a modification and Mr. Rohrbach defending the standard instruction used in the district.
DOJ-OGR-00017002.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that there are witnesses the defense considered calling but did not because these individuals would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, as the government could have charged them criminally based on prior testimony. The Court acknowledges that the defense cannot offer immunity like the government can, but views the jury charge under discussion as standard.
DOJ-OGR-00017001.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding jury instruction no. 50 ('uncalled witnesses charge'). Everdell argues that the instruction should not be included because certain defense witnesses refused to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, noting the government's power to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00017000.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, proposes an instruction regarding the credibility of a witness with a prior felony conviction, citing the case 'United States v. Berry' as a model. The opposing counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, requests time to review this new proposal, which the Court grants, suggesting the instruction be added as a standalone item.
DOJ-OGR-00016998.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding 'Instruction 44' concerning the credibility of witnesses who are convicted felons. Mr. Everdell reads a proposed instruction text derived from 'Sand' (likely a legal reference book), which Mr. Rohrbach challenges as not being standard practice in that district.
DOJ-OGR-00016996.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument regarding jury instructions in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that a 'conscious avoidance instruction' is appropriate because the government argues Maxwell either knew or consciously avoided knowing that the purpose of her travel with Jeffrey Epstein and minors was sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00016989.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, a lawyer named Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony for the judge, stating that three witnesses—Carolyn, Jane, and Kate—all testified that they had told Ms. Maxwell their age. He also recounts the testimony of another witness, Mr. Alessi, who said he saw Ms. Roberts and Jane at a house and believed them to be under 18, which is relevant to the issue of the defendant's knowledge of the witnesses' ages.
DOJ-OGR-00016988.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion about a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that this instruction would improperly lead the jury to convict, while the court questions the basis of his argument regarding the defendant's knowledge of the crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00016986.jpg
This court transcript captures an argument from a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, objecting to a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction for his client, Ms. Maxwell. He argues that the instruction is inappropriate because testimony from witnesses Jane, Annie, and Carolyn establishes Ms. Maxwell as an active participant in the alleged sexual crimes, not someone who deliberately ignored them. The attorney cites specific acts like participating in massages and groping to prove direct involvement, thereby negating the basis for a conscious avoidance theory.
DOJ-OGR-00016985.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a legal argument regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'overt acts' and the testimony of a witness named 'Kate.' The defense (Everdell and Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) are present, and the Judge calls for a 10-minute recess following a request by Ms. Sternheim to consult with Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the Judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell regarding edits to Jury Instruction No. 36. The discussion focuses on semantic changes, such as replacing 'the defendant' with 'Ms. Maxwell,' and addresses the removal of an individual named 'Kate' from the list of overt acts.
DOJ-OGR-00016983.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court hearing on August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The discussion centers on amending a legal document, specifically a clause alleging that Maxwell, among Epstein's employees, sent gifts to Carolyn between 2001 and 2004. Mr. Everdell argues for the exclusion of Maxwell's name from this clause, citing a lack of evidence and contradictory FedEx records, to which the government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, ultimately agrees.
DOJ-OGR-00016979.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. They are discussing specific edits to jury instructions, focusing on the wording related to a person named Jane being under the age of 17. Mr. Everdell also raises an objection to the jury being allowed to consider another person's (Annie's) testimony as an overt act in a conspiracy charge that violates New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00016978.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions regarding 'overt acts' involving witnesses named Jane, Annie, and Kate. The government agrees to remove an instruction related to Kate to avoid an improper conviction based solely on her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016977.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.
DOJ-OGR-00016976.jpg
This document is page 50 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the specific wording of jury instructions, specifically distinguishing between 'minors' and 'individuals under the age of 18' in relation to sex trafficking and conspiracy counts. The judge also corrects a clerical error in the title of Instruction 36 regarding Counts One, Three, and Five.
DOJ-OGR-00016975.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge ('The Court'), regarding specific wording changes to Jury Instruction No. 34. The prosecution (Rohrbach) successfully argues that the phrase 'an individual under the age of 18' should be changed to 'individuals under the age of 18' to accurately reflect that the conspiracy charge involved multiple minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016974.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about amending the language in jury instruction number 34. The key change involves replacing the general term "minors" with the more precise phrases "individuals under the age of 17" and "an individual under the age of 18" on specific lines of the instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00016972.jpg
This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge to finalize jury instructions. The parties agree to several edits, including replacing the term 'a Minor' with 'an Individual Under the Age of 18' to conform to the statute, and substituting the generic term 'the defendant' with the specific name 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00016971.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, where attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions with the judge. Key points include a request to substitute a 'Miller charge', a modification to specify a count relates 'solely to Carolyn', and a court clerk's observation about the word 'Minor' in the heading of Count Six. The document captures the procedural process of finalizing legal instructions for a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016969.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell. The parties discuss whether to send an indictment back to the jury due to a wording issue concerning a minor. Both the prosecution and defense unexpectedly agree that this is unnecessary, a rare occurrence that the judge remarks upon.
Sentencing Guidelines Argument
Argument regarding the interpretation of 'dangerous sex offenders' guidelines and background commentary.
Jury Question regarding Count Four
Argument regarding how to answer a jury question about whether a return flight alone can sustain a conviction.
Submission regarding jury instructions
Mr. Everdell mentions he raised the issue in a letter submission or orally.
Presentation of Photos
Everdell explains they only have single copies of certain photos received that morning and proposes walking them to the jury row rather than distributing copies.
Sidebar Request
Requesting a sidebar to discuss proving an inconsistent statement of a prior witness.
Jury Folders
Asking permission to place folders under jury chairs for cross-examination.
Witness Anonymity
Requesting anonymity or name protection for defense witnesses.
Cross-examination procedure
Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.
Argument regarding travel purpose
Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.
Jury instructions query
Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.
Jury Instructions
Request regarding instructions for jurors opening binders.
Sentencing Objections
Discussion regarding the scheduling of arguments concerning offense level calculations and financial penalties.
Admissibility of evidence via notary Keith Rooney
Discussion on calling Keith Rooney to authenticate land registry and Grumbridge documents.
Opportunity for additional arguments
The judge indicates they have read the written arguments and offers Mr. Everdell an opportunity to add anything new before asking questions.
Argument on sentencing guidelines and the Ex Post Facto C...
Mr. Everdell argues that the determination of which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply should have been made by a jury, not the court, because the issue involves a factual determination about when the offense ended and implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Clarification of paragraph number
Mr. Everdell interrupts the court to clarify that the court meant to refer to paragraph 9.
Jury instruction on aiding and abetting
Mr. Everdell argues to the court about the specifics of a jury instruction concerning aiding and abetting, particularly in relation to flights to New Mexico and Ms. Maxwell's involvement.
Interpretation of a sentencing guideline
Mr. Everdell argues that the commentary for a sentencing guideline concerning 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative and interpretative, not merely a recitation of Congressional thought, and should be considered by the court.
Objection to Presentence Report (PSR) regarding defendant...
The Court overrules an objection to including a specific asset in Ms. Maxwell's PSR for the purpose of determining a fine, discussing her financial affidavit and ability to pay.
Resting on the papers
Mr. Everdell informs the court that they are resting on the papers.
Objections to paragraphs in a legal document
Mr. Everdell confirms his objections to paragraphs 22 and 3. The Court overrules these objections, citing trial evidence related to witness testimony, metadata, and financial records.
Sentencing guidelines and Ex Post Facto Clause
Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) apply, due to implications of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Sentencing guidelines and leadership enhancement
The Court asks Mr. Everdell if he has any other points to raise from his papers, specifically mentioning a question about a leadership enhancement.
Sentencing guidelines and government arguments
Mr. Everdell argues that the Court has discretion to use the 2003 sentencing guidelines and disputes a government argument that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, calling it an 'extreme stretch'.
Correction of paragraph number
Correcting the judge saying Paragraph 9 instead of Paragraph 29.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity