Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Adversarial in court |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Special Agent Maguire
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness 3
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
M. Maxwell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
She (Defendant)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Parkinson
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Visoski
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PATRICK McHUGH
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kelly Maguire
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed male
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
potential witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Juror
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Keith Rooney
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant (implied)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
witness 3
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Co counsel defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chapell
|
Witness examiner |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Aznaran
|
Legal representative |
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-00014688.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Court and counsel (Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell) regarding a note received from the jury requesting office supplies, a specific transcript ('Matt's transcript'), and a definition of the legal term 'enticement'. Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the existing instruction stating that such terms have their 'ordinary everyday meanings'.
DOJ-OGR-00014676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge expresses frustration to Ms. Comey (Government) about a three-hour delay in providing requested transcripts to the jury. The Judge also instructs court staff (Ms. Williams) to contact alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00014672.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding how to answer a jury question concerning conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. The defense argues for repeating limiting instructions to prevent broad application of testimony, while the Court argues a simple 'yes' is the substantive answer and the limiting instruction is nonresponsive.
DOJ-OGR-00014671.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and a judge about a jury's question. The core issue is whether the testimony of a witness named 'Annie' can be considered for conspiracy counts, given a prior instruction that her testimony did not describe illegal sexual activity. The judge rules that the testimony is relevant and can be permissibly considered by the jury for those counts.
DOJ-OGR-00014670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The attorneys debate the necessity and scope of a limiting instruction for the jury regarding the testimony of a witness named 'Annie' and its application to specific counts in an indictment. The judge expresses a clear opinion on the matter, while the attorneys present differing views on how to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00014669.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the Judge coordinating the dismissal of the jury for the evening and subsequently addressing 'Court Exhibit 9,' a note from the jury asking if 'Annie's testimony' can be considered as conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. Ms. Comey argues the answer is yes, while Mr. Everdell requests a moment to confer.
DOJ-OGR-00014652.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge (THE COURT) outlines the logistical procedures for jury deliberations to the involved parties (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell). The discussion covers the daily schedule for deliberations, the materials the jury will be given (instructions, verdict form, exhibits), and the roles of court staff in managing the process.
DOJ-OGR-00014561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and several attorneys regarding the final preparations for trial exhibits. The counsel confirms that the exhibits have been reviewed by both the defense and the government and are ready for the jury. The judge provides instructions to mark the finalized list as a Court Exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00011770.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the end-of-day dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell, where the judge expresses frustration with numerous sidebars during the day's openings. The judge schedules a meeting for 8:45 a.m. the next day to address issues proactively before adjourning court until November 30, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00011769.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the logistics of providing physical evidence binders to jurors while maintaining witness anonymity. The Judge emphasizes that while jurors will know witness names, those names must not be published to the general courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00011767.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between Mr. Everdell and the Court about handling a sensitive exhibit. They agree that because the exhibit contains the full names of real people, it must be sealed from the public, with different formats (electronic and paper) provided to specific parties like the witness, Ms. Williams, and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00011758.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. During a direct examination by attorney Ms. Comey, a witness named Mr. Visoski identifies Government Exhibits 932 and 704 as fair and accurate photos of Mr. Epstein's brownstone residence at 9 East 71st Street in New York. With no objection from opposing counsel Mr. Everdell, the court admits the exhibits into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00011753.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Visoski. Ms. Comey (prosecution) introduces a photo of the pool area at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house as evidence (Exhibit 212). Visoski then describes the interior layout of the house, detailing the entrance courtyard, a large waiting area, a circular staircase, and the location of the master bedroom upstairs.
DOJ-OGR-00011747.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of witness Mr. Visoski by Ms. Comey, focusing on Ghislaine Maxwell's role as household manager for Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Visoski also describes the evolution of communication technology used by Epstein's staff, transitioning from pagers in the early 1990s to cellphones later in the decade.
DOJ-OGR-00011746.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. During the direct examination by attorney Ms. Comey, a witness named Mr. Visoski identifies Ghislaine Maxwell in two separate government exhibits, 115 and 111. The exhibits are subsequently admitted into evidence by the court without objection.
DOJ-OGR-00011742.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a witness named Visoski testifies about being hired as a pilot by Mr. Epstein. Visoski states that another pilot, David Rogers, with whom they had worked previously, was hired at the same time. During the testimony, the witness identifies Jeffrey Epstein in 'Government Exhibit 112', which is then successfully entered into evidence by the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00011738.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details procedural discussions between the Judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey regarding jury instructions for handling binders, the display of nonsealed exhibits, and a recess. The text also outlines the court's plan for the trial schedule over the Christmas and New Year's holidays.
DOJ-OGR-00011737.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys outside the presence of the jury. The attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, discuss the logistics and timing of distributing binders of sealed exhibits to the jurors. They ultimately agree to place the binders under the jurors' chairs before they are needed for testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017449.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Mr. Visoski. An attorney questions Visoski about Ghislaine Maxwell's presence on flights with Mr. Epstein, using a document to refresh the witness's memory regarding specific flights to Interlochen that Maxwell may not have been on. Visoski confirms Epstein was always on the aircraft but is uncertain about Maxwell's presence on every trip.
DOJ-OGR-00017440.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski (likely a pilot) by Mr. Everdell. The testimony establishes that in the 2000s, Visoski coordinated flight arrangements through Sarah Kellen. The witness confirms that while he received logistical details like date, time, and destination, he was not necessarily informed of the passenger manifest ahead of time.
DOJ-OGR-00017439.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on the frequency of Visoski's phone communications with Sarah Kellen, leading to the confirmation of her cellphone number as 917-855-3363 after the witness's memory is refreshed with another document.
DOJ-OGR-00017437.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Visoski, filed on August 10, 2022. Mr. Everdell questions Visoski about flight logs (document 3527-07) to establish when Sarah Kellen began flying on Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft. Visoski confirms that Kellen was flying on Epstein's planes in the early 2000s and the questioning pivots to her role as Epstein's personal assistant.
DOJ-OGR-00017436.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Visoski's interactions with Sarah Kellen, establishing her role in scheduling flights in the 2000s and attempting to pinpoint the date of her first flight on one of Epstein's planes, suggested to be September 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00017429.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Visoski, by an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The questioning focuses on Mr. Visoski's experience on a Gulf Stream airplane, specifically whether Mr. Epstein restricted his movement to the cockpit during flights. The transcript ends as Mr. Everdell begins to ask about Mr. Epstein's potential involvement in sex acts with underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00017428.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The excerpt captures a brief exchange between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim about the estimated remaining time for the proceeding. The judge also informs Ms. Sternheim that they have requested the courtroom temperature be raised for her comfort.
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