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 | Admission of Government Exhibits 252, 253, and 254 under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Gregory Parkinson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Sidebar/Discussion without Jury | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | Recess | The court calls for a comfort break during the proceedings. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A 'charging conference' was held where the defense requested the inclusion of travel from Florida... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Chapell by Mr. Everdell regarding an invoice (Government's 802) ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | An ongoing trial is discussed, with the judge stating they are not delaying it and that it may cl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness testimony | Anticipated testimony of Tracy Chapell, through whom Federal Express invoices will be introduced ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| N/A | Evidence handling | Mr. Everdell proposes to redact a 'decent number of records' (Federal Express invoices) over the ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Examination of witness PATRICK McHUGH, including direct, cross, and redirect. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Examination of witness KELLY MAGUIRE, including direct and cross. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Examination of witness Tracy Chapell, including direct examination and cross-examination, as part... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A discussion about case timing and scheduling after the jury was dismissed for the evening. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A proposed charge conference to be held either on the evening of the 16th or on Saturday the 18th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion about scheduling future court events. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A discussion between the judge and attorneys about the scheduling for the remainder of a trial, i... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Charging conference | A past conference where Mr. Everdell requested the inclusion of travel from Florida to New York a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | Direct examination of a witness regarding financial records for Epstein covering the period from ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court trial | An ongoing court trial where jury deliberations are taking place. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A final pretrial conference is discussed, for which Mr. Pagliuca's absence is requested. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness DAVID RODGERS by Mr. Everdell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Everdell previously testified about the acreage of the ranch. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The trial is scheduled to resume on Thursday at 9:30 AM with the defense phase of the case. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Direct examination of Sergeant Dawson regarding items found during a search. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017366.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge begins by noting on the record that a report confirmed all members of the public wishing to observe the trial have been accommodated in the main courtroom or overflow rooms. The judge then asks Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell if there are any other matters before the jurors are brought in, to which they both reply in the negative.
DOJ-OGR-00017357.jpg
A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses sustaining objections and finalizing redactions for a document. Later, following a recess, the Court reconvenes to address a note (likely from the jury) requesting the transcript of Larry Visoski (Epstein's long-time pilot), which is identified as Court Exhibit 20.
DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The attorney argues for a supplemental jury instruction concerning the territorial limits of New York law, which the judge rejects. The judge then raises concerns about potential trial interruptions from a health 'variant' and the need for jurors to plan for extended deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell is concerned the jury might convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, based on conduct that occurred solely in New Mexico for a charge under New York law and requests a supplemental instruction. The judge denies the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that the defense missed an earlier opportunity to limit the related testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017338.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The presiding judge explains the decision to extend jury deliberations by one hour each day due to a significant spike in COVID-19 cases (omicron variant) in New York City, which poses a risk of disrupting the trial. A participant, Mr. Everdell, briefly acknowledges the judge's statement.
DOJ-OGR-00017328.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (MS. MOE and MR. EVERDELL) regarding a note received from the jury. The judge directs the attorneys to review jury instruction number 21. Ms. Moe, representing the government, states that it is within the court's discretion to set the deliberation schedule and agrees that the jury should be advised to expect an extended session the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell) regarding a jury question. The conversation focuses on how to properly instruct the jury on 'Count Four', specifically concerning the intent and purpose of travel in relation to an 'aiding and abetting' charge. The judge resolves the ambiguity by directing the jury to review the full written instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017322.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, regarding the legal standard for finding a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane'. The discussion specifically focuses on whether a flight to New Mexico must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' for illegal sexual activity to meet the criteria for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00017321.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding a note sent by the jury during deliberations. The debate centers on whether the jury is asking about the general legal concept of 'aiding and abetting' or specifically about Ms. Maxwell's role in arranging flights to and from New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00017319.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge discuss a jury note regarding transportation and accountability for a return flight from New Mexico. The debate centers on whether Maxwell can be convicted based on arranging a return flight from an area where a victim, 'Jane,' claims sexual abuse occurred, as opposed to the initial flight to New Mexico which had alleged illegal intent.
DOJ-OGR-00017318.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding a question from the jury. The parties are trying to decide how to clarify an instruction related to a 'multi-leg trip' and 'Count Four', with Mr. Everdell suggesting a specific text and Ms. Moe arguing it is not what the jury is asking about.
DOJ-OGR-00017317.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, dated August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a discussion between MR. EVERDELL and MS. MOE, addressing 'Your Honor,' regarding a defendant's alleged role in transporting 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. The central issue is whether these flights were intended for illegal sexual activity and if the defendant's actions constitute aiding and abetting, with the jury currently deliberating on these points for a potential conviction on Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00017312.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The court receives a note from the jury requesting the transcript of testimony provided by David Rodgers (Epstein's pilot). The Judge and counsel (Ms. Moe for the government, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim for the defense) discuss the request and the schedule for jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017311.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the court and several individuals about a new rule requiring N95 or KN95 masks in the courthouse. The court also addresses the handling of two notes requesting evidence, specifically "Parkinson's transcript" (to be provided) and "Matt's transcript" (which has already been sent).
DOJ-OGR-00017309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), and two attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe). They are discussing how to respond to a note from the jury, which requested a transcript of 'Matt's' testimony and a definition of 'enticement'. The judge decides to send the transcript and directs the jury to specific page and line numbers in the jury instructions for the definition.
DOJ-OGR-00017308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the legal definition of the word 'entice' for jury instructions. The Judge cites specific case law (*Almonte*, *Dupigny*, and *Broxmeyer*) to define the term as 'to attract, induce, or lure using hope or desire.'
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00017306.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details proceedings where the jury is not present, and the Court discusses a note received from the jury requesting office supplies (Post-Its, highlighters), a transcript of testimony by a person named "Matt," and a definition of the legal term "enticement." Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the original jury instructions stating that such terms have their "ordinary everyday meanings."
DOJ-OGR-00017296.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and attorneys after the jury has been dismissed, focusing on procedural matters such as the government's review of transcripts and the defense's readiness to proceed. The judge also outlines instructions for contacting the alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00017291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between attorneys (Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell) and the judge regarding a jury question. The core issue is whether the testimony of a witness named Annie can be considered for conspiracy counts, given a prior instruction that it did not describe illegal sexual activity. The judge rules that the testimony is relevant and permissible for the jury to consider in relation to the conspiracy counts.
DOJ-OGR-00017290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The central issue is whether a limiting instruction should be given to the jury regarding the testimony of a witness named Annie, and how her testimony relates to specific counts (One, Two, Three, and Four) in an indictment. The parties disagree on the necessity and scope of such an instruction, with the judge ultimately asserting that the answer to the underlying question is 'yes'.
DOJ-OGR-00017289.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and multiple counsel regarding a note from the jury. The jury, via Court Exhibit 9, asks if they can consider 'Annie's testimony' as evidence of conspiracy for two specific counts. The government's counsel, Ms. Comey, affirms this, while another counsel, Mr. Everdell, requests time to confer on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell) about the procedures for jury deliberations. The judge outlines the schedule, including a 9:00 a.m. start time, and clarifies that exhibits will be provided automatically to the jury. The discussion also covers the roles of court staff like the deputy and marshal in managing the jury process.
DOJ-OGR-00013996.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial break. The judge instructs the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell) to confer and narrow their disagreements regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements. The judge states an intention to review these statements during the lunch break to help resolve the issues later that day.
DOJ-OGR-00013962.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of Elizabeth Loftus's direct examination. Ms. Loftus, identified as a professor and scientist, is called as a witness by the Defendant. The excerpt includes procedural discussions between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and THE COURT regarding the handling of an exhibit and the commencement of the witness's testimony.
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