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-00018248.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. Parkinson testifies about photographs of a 'garden room' at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared on October 20, 2005. The government, represented by Ms. Comey, successfully moves to admit three exhibits (GX223, 224, 225) into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of third parties, with no objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00018244.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Parkinson, by an attorney, Ms. Comey. The questioning focuses on identifying specific rooms and features of a property, such as a computer room and an elevator on the second floor, with references to diagrams and Government Exhibit 297. The proceedings are overseen by a judge, with another attorney, Mr. Everdell, present.
DOJ-OGR-00018237.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson. The testimony authenticates a video depicting the interior and exterior of 358 El Brillo Way (Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence) as it appeared during a search on October 20, 2005. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully moves to admit the video (Exhibit 296R) under seal to protect the identities of pseudonym witnesses and third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00018233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the logistics of presenting evidence, including whether to provide a paper binder to the court and how a video will be displayed in the main courtroom but not in an overflow room. The judge gives instructions to ensure the public can view exhibits after the video is shown.
DOJ-OGR-00018230.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a discussion about legal strategy and evidence presentation. The defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, confirms to the court their request to not give a specific jury instruction regarding a photo of a minor, to avoid highlighting it. Subsequently, Ms. Comey informs the court that the parties have agreed to redact a portion of a video (Government Exhibit 296), which shows Detective Recarey reading a search warrant, before it is played for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018229.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, where the jury is not present. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, withdraws a request for a limiting instruction, arguing it would be counterproductive. At the court's request, another attorney, Ms. Comey, reads the proposed instructions into the record, which were intended to guide the jury on how to interpret video and photo evidence concerning Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018227.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a segment where the Court excuses Mr. Parkinson and a witness for a lunch break, while Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, counsel, discuss plans to confer on limiting instructions and technical preparations. The proceedings are set to resume in 45 minutes, highlighting the procedural management of a court hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00018225.jpg
This document is page 124 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey questions witness Mr. Parkinson about photographic exhibits (GX 264-267) depicting various angles of a kitchen containing an island with books and appliances. The defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, offers no objection to the exhibits, which are subsequently admitted by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00018218.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Parkinson by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Parkinson identifies Government Exhibits 201-222 as fair and accurate photos of the exterior of a residence at 358 El Brillo Way as it appeared around October 20, 2005. Following this identification, Ms. Comey offers the exhibits into evidence, to which opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018212.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Mr. Parkinson. He identifies Government Exhibit 721 as an aerial map of Palm Beach and West Palm Beach, specifically confirming it depicts the area around 358 El Brillo Way. After no objection from opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, the court admits the map into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018132.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys (Moe, Everdell, Comey) and the Judge discussing the testimony of a witness named 'Jane,' specifically her detailed description of the interior and artwork of a house. Additionally, Ms. Comey raises a privacy concern regarding ensuring that a video shown to jurors does not simultaneously appear on public screens in overflow rooms, which is relevant for the witness following Mr. Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018129.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell are discussing with the judge the proper way to present evidence, including items in a bag and photographs of a residence. Mr. Everdell raises a concern about the relevance of photographs taken during a 2019 search, as they depict the residence's interior 15 years after the alleged conspiracy ended in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00018128.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves defense attorney Mr. Everdell and prosecutor Ms. Moe debating the admissibility and description of 'costumes' (Government Exhibit 53) and photographs of them (Exhibits 919 and 920). The defense argues specifically that these items must not be described to the jury as 'schoolgirl outfits' to avoid prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00018127.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the presentation of evidence. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, objects to the prosecution's proposal to show the jury a bag of costumes and related photographs, arguing that this should not happen until 'witness 3' testifies to establish the items' relevance. Everdell expresses concern that showing the items prematurely could unfairly prejudice the jury if the witness's testimony is delayed or does not occur.
DOJ-OGR-00018122.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Everdell and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence. The key points are the government's intent to use photographs of a massage room rather than the physical table, and Mr. Everdell's argument that costumes found in a 2019 search are irrelevant as they were discovered 15 years after the alleged conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00018120.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Ms. Comey, informs the judge that the witness order for the day has been changed due to travel issues, with the new sequence being Parkinson, Dawson, Maguire, Meder, and Flatley. The parties also discuss that witness Shelling's testimony has been stipulated to and that witness Maguire will likely testify after lunch.
DOJ-OGR-00018119.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge and counsel. The parties discuss how to present sensitive video evidence, containing nude images of a minor, to the jury while protecting the third party's privacy by using only the jurors' screens. The transcript concludes with counsel confirming the order of the next three witnesses: Parkinson (whose testimony is finished), Mr. Dawson, and Kelly Maguire.
DOJ-OGR-00018118.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys and the judge regarding the admissibility of testimony about massages given by Jeffrey Epstein, with the judge ultimately sustaining an objection due to the timeframe. The transcript also details a logistical discussion about submitting a sensitive video under seal that contains images of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
DOJ-OGR-00018116.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Everdell) argue over the admissibility and context of photos found on a bookshelf, which include images of 'Jane' and nude females. There is a specific dispute over Jane's age at the time (15 vs 19), after which the discussion shifts to the introduction of evidence (video, photos) through a witness named Mr. Parkinson.
DOJ-OGR-00018115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal debate between Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell over the admissibility of a photograph as evidence. Ms. Comey argues for showing a closeup to establish its placement on a bookshelf, while Mr. Everdell contends it must be shown in the wider, non-prejudicial context of other nonsexual photos to avoid misleading the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018112.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey argues for the admission of a photograph (Exhibit 250) found in the 'lake room' of Epstein's home, which depicts Epstein with a young girl across his lap, appearing to pull down her underwear. The prosecution argues this is probative because it was prominently displayed in the house that Maxwell 'ran' as the 'lady of the house,' while Defense attorney Mr. Everdell objects, calling it prejudicial and an attempt to backdoor evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018111.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues against the admissibility or weight of photographs taken during a 2005 walk-through of an Epstein residence, noting that witness Juan Alessi left in 2002 and witness 'Jane' only gave general descriptions of art, not specific identifications of the photos in question. The defense contends there is no testimony placing specific photos on the wall during the time relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00018106.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues for the exclusion of a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296). The basis for the argument is that the video shows a photograph on a wall that the judge has already ruled inadmissible as a separate exhibit (Exhibit 288). The dialogue serves to clarify the distinction between multiple pieces of related evidence for the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00018105.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument over the admissibility of evidence. An attorney, Ms. Comey, contends that a 40-minute walk-through video (Gov. Exhibit 296) is relevant because it shows a previously excluded photograph (Gov. Exhibit 270) prominently displayed outside a master bedroom shared by the defendant and Mr. Epstein. The defense expresses concern that such evidence would be prejudicial to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00018104.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues to the judge ('your Honor') about the admissibility of photographic evidence, specifically Government Exhibit 250. He describes the photo as depicting Jeffrey Epstein with a young, 'prepubescent' girl and contends it is irrelevant and prejudicial, similar to other photos that were already excluded.
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