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-00010248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the case USA v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a discussion between the Judge and defense attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a juror who had posted on social media and was a victim of sexual abuse himself. The defense argues that the juror's history and desire to be on an 'interesting' jury involving sexual abuse victims impact his ability to be impartial, and they discuss whether he followed court instructions during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010247.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that a juror's post-trial behavior contradicts his claim of wanting privacy regarding his own sexual abuse. Everdell cites the juror's public Facebook posts about serving on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and his direct comments to victim Annie Farmer as evidence that he wanted to be known as a victim and a "champion of sexual abuse." The Court acknowledges the need to question the juror about these apparent contradictions.
DOJ-OGR-00010246.jpg
This is page 31 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. Defense attorneys Sternheim and Everdell are arguing with the Judge regarding the scope of questioning for a juror who allegedly failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense is pushing to question the juror about his public statements to reporters and a specific post directed to victim Annie Farmer, while the Judge refuses to allow questions about internal jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010245.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing a colloquy during jury selection for a case involving sexual abuse of a minor. The judge denies a request for specific follow-up questions to a potential juror, reasoning that the defense had not made similar requests for another juror and that core questions of fairness had been addressed. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then challenges the judge on whether the juror was adequately questioned about the specific, sensitive nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010244.jpg
This document is page 29 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that a juror's history of sexual abuse (involving a stepbrother and a friend) is relevant to establishing bias, as it may align with victim testimony heard during the trial. The Court denies Everdell's request to ask the juror specific questions about their therapy and trauma, citing that the defense failed to propose comparable questions during the original jury selection (voir dire).
DOJ-OGR-00014745.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge thanks and discharges the jury, acknowledging their service during the pandemic. Following the jury's dismissal, the court and counsel (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) discuss post-verdict logistics, including a briefing schedule and the presentence report, concluding with Ms. Sternheim requesting a court order for Ms. Maxwell to receive a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00014741.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. The judge discusses a sustained objection and proper redactions with counsel before the court recesses. After reconvening, the judge reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of an individual named Larry Visoski.
DOJ-OGR-00014723.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorney Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell argues that conduct and travel occurring solely in New Mexico cannot legally form the basis for a conviction of his client, Ms. Maxwell, under New York law, and he requests a supplemental jury instruction to this effect. The judge rejects the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that Mr. Everdell failed to seek to exclude the related testimony earlier.
DOJ-OGR-00014722.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues his interpretation of a recent note from the jury, contending that they are confused about whether they can convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, on Count Four based solely on events in New Mexico and are unclear on the jury instructions. The Court acknowledges his position but expresses skepticism about the assumptions being made.
DOJ-OGR-00014721.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. A judge explains the decision to extend daily jury deliberations by one hour due to a significant spike in COVID-19 cases from the omicron variant in New York City. The judge's concern is that jurors or trial participants might need to quarantine, which would risk the completion of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014719.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An attorney argues that the existing instructions are sufficient and that sending new, confusing ones would be a mistake. The judge ('THE COURT') then critiques the defense's newly proposed instruction, stating it addresses a count the jury didn't ask about and contains a legally incorrect paragraph concerning sexual activity involving a person named 'Jane' in states other than New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014710.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge, Prosecutor Ms. Moe, and Defense Attorney Mr. Everdell are discussing a response to a note received from the jury. The Judge decides to refer the jury back to Instruction Number 21 on page 28. Additionally, the parties discuss extending the schedule for jury deliberations for the following day.
DOJ-OGR-00014709.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge (THE COURT) and two lawyers (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) about a jury's confusion. The jury appears to be mistaking New Mexico law for New York law regarding Count Four. Despite Mr. Everdell's concerns about ongoing confusion, the judge decides to simply refer the jury back to the original charge, which Ms. Moe argues clearly specifies a New York statute.
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell). The discussion focuses on formulating a response to a jury's question regarding 'Count Four', specifically concerning the required evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight to secure a conviction. The judge finds the jury's question ambiguous and directs them to the full jury instructions, while the counsel argues for a more specific clarification.
DOJ-OGR-00014704.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. Menninger. They are discussing the legal standard required for a jury to find a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane' to New Mexico. The central issue is whether the flight must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' related to illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00014701.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a jury note. The debate centers on whether Ghislaine Maxwell can be held criminally liable for arranging a return flight from New Mexico for a victim named 'Jane,' distinguishing the intent of the return flight from the initial flight to the location where sexual abuse allegedly occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00014700.jpg
This is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a debate between the defense (Mr. Everdell), the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the Court regarding how to answer a jury note concerning 'Count Four' and a 'second element' related to specific flights or trips. The Judge leans toward following the government's suggestion to refer the jury back to the original instructions rather than providing new specifics.
DOJ-OGR-00014699.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe argue before the judge regarding a question posed by the jury about 'Count Four,' specifically whether a return flight from New Mexico involving a victim named 'Jane' constitutes aiding in illegal sexual activity if the initial flight to New Mexico did not. The defense argues the return flight cannot be the sole basis for conviction, while the prosecution argues intent can be inferred.
DOJ-OGR-00014697.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between Mr. Everdell and the Court regarding a note from the jury. The jury is asking if a defendant can be found guilty solely for aiding and abetting a return flight from New Mexico, considered separately from the initial flight to New Mexico. Mr. Everdell argues that the answer should be 'no' based on the court's instructions that the travel must have a 'significant or motivating purpose'.
DOJ-OGR-00014696.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge and various counsel. The parties address two notes from the jury: one stating a desire to end deliberations at 5 p.m., and another, marked as Court Exhibit 14, for which counsel proposes a response directing the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00014694.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and counsel while a jury is deliberating. The court reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of David Rodgers and then discusses the potential of extending deliberations into the next day. Counsel Ms. Sternheim advises that the jury should be allowed to set its own schedule without pressure from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00014693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, likely relating to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details a discussion regarding courthouse COVID-19 mask mandates (N95/KN95) and the handling of jury notes during deliberations. Specifically, the jury requested a transcript for 'Parkinson' (Court Exhibit 13) and had previously received supplies and a transcript for 'Matt'.
DOJ-OGR-00014692.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion regarding the legal definition of the word "entice" and a procedural matter of marking a note as a court exhibit. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises a concern that Ms. Maxwell was provided an N95 mask but restricted to wearing it only in the courtroom, to which the Judge clarifies the rule applies to the whole courthouse.
DOJ-OGR-00014691.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a discussion between the Judge (The Court), Defense (Mr. Everdell), and Prosecution (Ms. Moe) regarding a response to a jury note during deliberations. The court is preparing to send the jury a transcript of testimony from a witness named 'Matt' and is clarifying jury instructions regarding the definition of 'enticement' found on pages 21 and 33 of the charge.
DOJ-OGR-00014690.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding jury instructions and the legal definition of the word 'entice,' citing cases such as Almonte, Dupigny, and Broxmeyer. Mr. Everdell notes a technical difficulty with internet access during the proceeding.
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