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-00016968.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between counsel (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Rohrbach) and the judge (THE COURT) about editing the language in a document related to transportation. The parties agree to amend a phrase, and the judge, acting on a suggestion from the court clerk, decides to simply cut the words "or foreign" to leave the phrase as "transporting an individual in interstate commerce."
DOJ-OGR-00016967.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about finalizing the wording for jury instructions. The parties agree on language concerning the defendant's knowledge of a person named Jane being under 17 and the context of 'interstate commerce'.
DOJ-OGR-00016966.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court transcript from the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Everdell and the Judge discuss specific wording amendments to jury instructions or the verdict form, specifically requesting that Count Four be specified as relating 'solely to Jane.' They also discuss a discrepancy between the federal statute age definition (under 18) and New York law (under 17) regarding the transport of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00016964.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal case, likely a hearing or trial. It involves discussion about jury instructions, testimony regarding sexual contact between Jane and Epstein in New Mexico, and the testimony of Kate and Annie. The attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, are arguing about the relevance of certain evidence and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00016963.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues for specific jury instructions regarding the testimony of victims 'Kate', 'Annie', and 'Jane', specifically distinguishing between New York offenses and sexual contact in New Mexico. The discussion focuses on the legal age of consent in New Mexico (mentioned as 15 or 16) relative to Jane's age during her trips there.
DOJ-OGR-00016962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where Mr. Everdell requests an addition to the jury instructions concerning the testimony of witnesses Kate and Ms. Farmer. Mr. Rohrbach argues against this addition, claiming the existing instructions are sufficient and that adding more would confuse the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016961.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell requests that the jury instructions be updated to explicitly state that individuals named Kate and Annie were over the age of consent under New York law, so their testimony cannot be considered evidence of illegal sexual activity. The Court is also noted as agreeing to change references from 'the defendant' to 'Ms. Maxwell'.
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016958.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge ('THE COURT') and an attorney ('MR. EVERDELL'). Mr. Everdell is advocating for a new proposed jury instruction, arguing that its 'dominant purpose' language is more accurate as it is based on Second Circuit case law from Judge Rakoff, unlike the previous instruction's language which he claims was invented by Judge Sand without basis in circuit law.
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00016954.jpg
Page 28 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt details a legal debate between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell before the Judge ('The Court') regarding specific jury instructions concerning 'persuasion and inducement or enticement to travel' and 'significant or motivating purpose.' The Judge overrules a request regarding causation definitions.
DOJ-OGR-00016953.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing before the Judge regarding legal definitions of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'causation' in relation to interstate travel statutes. The discussion focuses on whether the persuasion must be the direct cause of the travel for the statute to be satisfied.
DOJ-OGR-00016952.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. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions defining 'causation,' 'inducement,' and 'persuasion' in relation to a victim referred to as 'Jane' traveling in interstate commerce. The defense seeks specific language linking inducement to the travel, while the prosecution argues that the terms inherently imply causation.
DOJ-OGR-00016951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An unnamed speaker contends that a specific instruction on causation for terms like 'persuasion' and 'inducement' would confuse the jury and is not required by precedent from the Broxmeyer case. In response, Mr. Everdell argues that such an instruction would not heighten the level of proof but would simply clarify the meaning of the words as they are used in the statute.
DOJ-OGR-00016950.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell is arguing for specific jury instructions regarding the definition of 'persuasion,' 'inducement,' and 'enticement' based on the precedent *U.S. v. Broxmeyer*. He proposes language stating that these elements are only satisfied if they specifically *caused* the victim, referred to as 'Jane,' to travel in interstate commerce.
DOJ-OGR-00016949.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and a judge regarding specific wording changes in a legal document. Mr. Everdell proposes omitting the phrase 'or foreign,' suggests replacing 'an individual' with 'Jane' to specify Count Two, and reiterates a previously overruled objection to the word 'coerced.' The Court accepts some changes while confirming others have been overruled, thereby refining the document's language for the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016946.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where attorney Rohrbach argues for the distinct meanings of "force" and "coercion" in a sex trafficking statute. The Court overrules an objection by attorney Everdell, who then ensures his objection is preserved for the record before moving on in the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00016944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach of the government. They are collaborating to edit statutory text for a legal document, agreeing to remove language related to foreign commerce and coercion to better fit the evidence of the case. The agreed-upon changes include using ellipses and adding the phrase 'knowingly persuades, induces, or entices'.
DOJ-OGR-00016942.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach debating the specific language regarding the age of 'minors' in Count Five of the indictment, which covers a conspiracy period from 2001 to 2004. The prosecutor clarifies that for sex trafficking counts, the relevant age of consent is statutorily defined as 18.
DOJ-OGR-00016939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach (for the government) about jury instructions. The main point of contention is whether to explicitly state 'under the age of 17' for an offense, with Mr. Everdell arguing it's necessary for clarity to distinguish from other individuals mentioned in flight logs whose ages are unknown. The government acknowledges the age is an element of the offense but questions its inclusion in a summary.
DOJ-OGR-00016937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal debate over jurisdiction and conspiracy charges. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony from witnesses Annie, Kate, and Carolyn regarding events in New Mexico, Arizona, or 'an island' does not satisfy the requirement to prove a violation of New York law. The Judge overrules the objection, stating that the defense is conflating substantive counts with conspiracy counts and that a direct violation of NY law is not required to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.
DOJ-OGR-00016934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues about jury instructions, specifically that 'Count One' should refer solely to victim 'Jane' between 1994 and 2004. He further argues that conduct involving victims 'Kate' (due to age of consent in NY) and 'Annie' (conduct in New Mexico) did not constitute violations of the specific laws charged.
DOJ-OGR-00016932.jpg
A page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, withdraws a request regarding Counts Five and Six due to statutory changes regarding 'foreign commerce.' The Judge works with defense attorney Mr. Everdell to specifically remove the words 'and foreign' from page 15 of the document under discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00016929.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where attorneys debate the legal terminology in an indictment. Mr. Everdell argues against including 'and foreign' in the commerce charge, suggesting a lack of evidence. In response, Mr. Rohrbach, for the government, cites flight records showing the defendant traveled overseas with Jeffrey Epstein and a 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, asserting this evidence supports the 'foreign commerce' element.
DOJ-OGR-00016928.jpg
This is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place in open court without the jury present, involving a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the draft jury charge and verdict form. The Judge outlines the process for reviewing requested changes to the draft charge page by page.
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