Relationship Details

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach (for the government) about jury instructions. The main point of contention is whether to explicitly state 'under the age of 17' for an offense, with Mr. Everdell arguing it's necessary for clarity to distinguish from other individuals mentioned in flight logs whose ages are unknown. The government acknowledges the age is an element of the offense but questions its inclusion in a summary.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a minor issue with the fourth witness, identified as Mr. Rogers. The parties agree to resolve the issue during a break, and the court adjourns until the jury is present.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The discussion centers on the precise wording of a jury instruction concerning "uncalled witnesses," with Mr. Everdell proposing a modification and Mr. Rohrbach defending the standard instruction used in the district.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell), and a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach). The judge arranges a charging conference for the upcoming Saturday morning and discusses ensuring public access. Mr. Everdell then raises a logistical issue concerning the presentation of photo evidence to the jury, as they have only just received a single physical copy of the photos.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, proposes an instruction regarding the credibility of a witness with a prior felony conviction, citing the case 'United States v. Berry' as a model. The opposing counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, requests time to review this new proposal, which the Court grants, suggesting the instruction be added as a standalone item.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. During the testimony, Government Exhibits are discussed and admitted into evidence, with Ms. Chapell identifying Exhibit 802 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." The government then offers this exhibit under seal.

This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before a judge about whether to allow the impeachment of a witness, Juan Alessi, based on prior inconsistent statements he made to Sergeant Dawson about a burglary. Mr. Everdell argues it is relevant to Alessi's credibility, while Mr. Rohrbach contends it is a collateral matter not central to the trial.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach of the government. They are collaborating to edit statutory text for a legal document, agreeing to remove language related to foreign commerce and coercion to better fit the evidence of the case. The agreed-upon changes include using ellipses and adding the phrase 'knowingly persuades, induces, or entices'.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient's location as West Palm Beach, Florida, with the recipient's first name being Carolyn.

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, regarding a package shipped on December 3, 2002. The testimony establishes the sender's address as 457 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and the recipient as a person named Carolyn in West Palm Beach, Florida.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, and the judge. They are debating the precise wording to use when presenting overt acts from an indictment to a jury, specifically concerning the age of a victim. The core issue is how to handle discrepancies between the age listed in the indictment ('under 18') and the legally relevant age of consent ('17'), with proposals ranging from using general legal phrasing to modifying the specific age with the qualifier 'the indictment alleges'.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach about finalizing the wording for jury instructions. The parties agree on language concerning the defendant's knowledge of a person named Jane being under 17 and the context of 'interstate commerce'.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell successfully offers 'Defense Exhibit TC-1', related to FedEx business invoices, into evidence under a temporary seal. After the exhibit is admitted and made available to the jury, Mr. Everdell concludes his questioning, and the witness is excused by the court.

This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell about a stipulation regarding the testimony of a witness, Sergeant Michael Dawson. The parties agreed to read the stipulation to the jury to avoid the inconvenience of the witness having to travel back from Florida to provide additional testimony.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge, government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell. The parties discuss whether to send an indictment back to the jury due to a wording issue concerning a minor. Both the prosecution and defense unexpectedly agree that this is unnecessary, a rare occurrence that the judge remarks upon.

This document is a transcript of a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, where attorneys Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach discuss jury instructions with the judge. Key points include a request to substitute a 'Miller charge', a modification to specify a count relates 'solely to Carolyn', and a court clerk's observation about the word 'Minor' in the heading of Count Six. The document captures the procedural process of finalizing legal instructions for a jury.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where government exhibits are being entered into evidence. Attorney Mr. Rohrbach questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 802 as an invoice connected to Jeffrey E. Epstein's account. The government then requests that this exhibit be placed under seal.

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a legal debate where Mr. Everdell requests an addition to the jury instructions concerning the testimony of witnesses Kate and Ms. Farmer. Mr. Rohrbach argues against this addition, claiming the existing instructions are sufficient and that adding more would confuse the jury.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, questions a witness, Ms. Chapell, who identifies Government Exhibit 803 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." Following her testimony and with no objection from another attorney, Mr. Everdell, the court admits this exhibit and others into evidence.

This court transcript page, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a discussion between the court and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach. The conversation covers the scheduling of a witness for testimony and the legal relevance of that testimony, which concerns who resided at a home before 1997. Mr. Rohrbach, representing the government, argues that this evidence has only "marginal impeachment value" against the defendant's prior deposition testimony regarding their move to the 44 Kinnerton Street home.