witness 3
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Alleged sexual conduct |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Unspecified |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Subject of testimony |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
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-00018123.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely from the defense, argues against admitting costumes as evidence, claiming they are irrelevant and would prejudice the jury. In response, Ms. Moe, for the prosecution, argues the evidence is highly relevant to counter the defense's repeated claims that Epstein had no interest in underage girls, citing his possession of "schoolgirl outfits" near his massage room.
DOJ-OGR-00008343.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 10, 2021. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that testimony regarding Accuser 2 and Accuser 3 might lead the jury to convict Maxwell on an improper basis because their allegations do not relate to New York law violations. The Court acknowledges the need to clarify to the jury that while evidence may be relevant to enticement charges, sexual activity in New Mexico cannot be considered as the illegal conduct charged in the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00008339.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are clarifying a point of law regarding the testimony of 'witness 3' about sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The core of the conversation is whether the defendant can be convicted 'solely' on this testimony or if it must be considered in combination with other evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell argues that the jury must be carefully instructed regarding testimony about 'Accuser 2' and 'Accuser 3' to avoid convicting Maxwell based on 'New Mexico activity' rather than New York law violations. The Court (Judge) acknowledges the need for clarification regarding the 'enticement' charge versus the sexual activity itself.
DOJ-OGR-00011650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. The discussion centers on a legal point about whether a defendant can be convicted based 'solely' on the testimony of 'witness 3' concerning sexual conduct with Mr. Epstein. The judge seeks to clarify the precise legal standard and the government's stance on the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00011649.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding procedural matters. The court affirms that defense experts are precluded from testifying without providing specific notice as required by Rule 16. The conversation then shifts to a specific limiting instruction for the jury, which states that the defendant cannot be convicted based on testimony about sexual conduct between 'witness 3' and 'Mr. Epstein'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity